Company policies
- Thread starter PhoenixConflagration
- Start date
Where I work employees are not to have firearms, knives, non-company computers, non-company cameras and alot of other stuff. They have a company skeet team and when they have shoots they can bring their equipment with them but we (security) get an email from the plant manager stating who has it, what it is (with serial numbers), what vehicle it's in (with license plate number) and where it's parked. Plus all vehicles on company property (inside the maingate and outside parking lots) are subject to search.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
TNG +1. I have already expressed my opinion that employers should have no rights over employees except in matter that specifically and directly affect their job performance.
I see no moral grounds for being slaves to whims of your employer. Such mentalities of employer absolutism were the justification for sexism, racism and other discriminatory practices.
I see no moral grounds for being slaves to whims of your employer. Such mentalities of employer absolutism were the justification for sexism, racism and other discriminatory practices.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Your solution may be at hand. I just got this in an e-mail from the NRA-ILA.
Link to NRA-ILA's onsite article.
The court's decision. (Note: .pdf format. Adobe reader required.)
Link to NRA-ILA's onsite article.
The court's decision. (Note: .pdf format. Adobe reader required.)
David Armstrong
Moderator
As mentioned, that is not going to happen. You voluntarily accept the job, you voluntarily accept the risk. Given the millions of peole who get to and from work every day without needing a gun, you will be hard-pressed to show any cause for action against the business. But again, as I've said so many times before, this shouldn't even be an issue. Are you (generic "you", not specific) an honest person whose word means something? If so it is pretty clear. You have made a deal with the business...you hire me and give me salary and benefits, I agree to follow your rules regarding work. As long as the business is within the parameters of the law, you should follow their rules. That is the deal you have made. Is your word as a person any good, or are you not to be trusted? Very simple, IMO. I see my friend Glenn has brought up the moral issue. If there is anything more basic to morals and ethical behavior than honesty and trust I'm not sure what it would be. And I always suggest turning the issue around. If it is OK for you to lie to the company about your work, is it OK for the company to lie to you about your compensation? Or would that be dishonest of them?
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
While I understand the issue, Dave raises - it is because of the necessity to lie to one's employer, that such control of employee behavior that perhaps causes a moral conundrum not be permitted.
In a similar note, I do know in the past - when it was legit to discriminate on the grounds of religion, persons who were non-Christian made up church affliations to get hired during the Depression. Were they immoral to maintain employment with such a deception? Thus, to avoid the conundrum, I propose that employers have no ability to control behavior not related to the job directly. Being unemployed during the Depression was a bad thing.
In a similar note, I do know in the past - when it was legit to discriminate on the grounds of religion, persons who were non-Christian made up church affliations to get hired during the Depression. Were they immoral to maintain employment with such a deception? Thus, to avoid the conundrum, I propose that employers have no ability to control behavior not related to the job directly. Being unemployed during the Depression was a bad thing.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
David Armstrong said:
Fairness and equity would be just as basic and just as important.
David Armstrong said:
As do I. If the employer denies you the right to defend yourself at work shouldn't he then take similiar steps to protect your safety?
You see, it works both ways and if it only goes one way then it is immoral and unfair.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Good thoughts Glenn. Things are not always so black and white as some would think. Take those who hid Jews from the Nazi's in WWII. Were they immoral for "lying" to the Nazis? I think not.
Last edited:
When you suggest "turning the issue around," I suggest you keep it topical with an apples-to-apples comparison. The comparison you just suggested is not apples to apples, since whether or not someone is armed has nothing to do with their work product.
Try this instead: if it is okay for you to fail to disclose to the company about matters unrelated to your job, then it is okay for the company to fail to disclose information to you about matters unrelated to your job. Agree or disagree, this is a one-to-one correspondent. What you suggested was not.
pax
Perhaps one could try sending an anonymous letter to the company boss asking if an exception to the "no guns" policy could be made for individuals with a valid permit? If they say yes, hold onto that letter and use it to your advantage if you're ever "caught." If they say no, then one could ask what reason they have to deny someone officially licensed by the state, possibly opening up the issue to further discussion.
spacemanspiff
New member
The employee handbook is a contract. A contract could be amended, and still be lawful, if you follow the correct steps. I'm just speaking out of my posterior here, but most companies require you to sign a statement that gives your acknowledgment to the corporate policies. If you were to amend your handbook, and indicate on the statement that you sign that you amended it, then if your employer overlooks it, doesn't catch it, but you still made some effort to point out to them that you did change your copy of the handbook, then in my amateur-legal-mind, they would have little recourse if you did have a firearm in your vehicle.
When the office I work for was revising their handbooks, and the subject came up about weapons, I offered a suggestion for the wording. They did wind up changing it from "employees shall not possess any weapons while on company property blah blah blah" to "employees shall not possess any Illegal weapons on company property blah blah blah".
Hey, its not my fault they couldnt understand what difference that one word made to their policy.
"No, this pistol is not an illegal weapon, its 100% lawful."
When the office I work for was revising their handbooks, and the subject came up about weapons, I offered a suggestion for the wording. They did wind up changing it from "employees shall not possess any weapons while on company property blah blah blah" to "employees shall not possess any Illegal weapons on company property blah blah blah".
Hey, its not my fault they couldnt understand what difference that one word made to their policy.
"No, this pistol is not an illegal weapon, its 100% lawful."
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
pax said:
Touche' Kathy! What is missed here is that the employer does not pay you to follow their work rules, they pay you to do a job and perform work.
Now, your continued employment may be severed if you disobey the rule but they are not paying you to follow it.
I as an employee am not being paid to not sexually harass female employees but I might be terminated if I do it.
Therefore following company policy does not equate to getting a pay check. Performing your work does.
Employers are required to minimize certain risks to their employees. All sorts of risks, from safety guards on conveyor equipment to loose carpeting to providing ergonomic chairs. In certain jobs they can mandate the length of your hair or the way your hair is worn/covered. A single incident of negligent discharge would mean an unacceptable level of risk.
To meet minimum standards for access security, many company offices now include ID badges to be visibly worn and access-control between public and working areas. Usually when this is done, there is some form of security at the front door or a screening process before people are admitted to the work area.[1]
By implementing a security-screening process the company provides a measure of security "that balances the company's obligation to a safe work environment with the cost of providing the security." In other words, they're taking "reasonable and prudent" measures to prevent injury to their people.
If a company overtly permits you and licensed others to carry at work and a single ND occurs which injures or kills another person, the company's "deep pockets" will put them center stage for a wrongful death lawsuit. A company that has no policy prohibiting or regulating arms will likewise be targeted as "negligent" for failing to control the presence of weapons.
Likewise a company that prohibits employees from having arms at work but does not take any steps to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the building will be targeted as "negligent" in the event of an assault or homicide.[2]
The company that both regulates the possession of arms and provides basic security to prevent unauthorized people from entering the work area can show that reasonable measures were in place to prevent or reduce risks to employees.[3] This means a "negligence" claim must show that the employer could have corrected a security flaw at very minimal cost or effort, but failed to do so.
Companies do not need to provide armed guards or have sufficient "tactical forces" to engage an armed intruder. Not even if a deranged ex-spouse entered a nearby business and killed seven. Nor do they need to have manned camera monitors watching every entrance point. And absent any specific threat to them or a notable trend in armed assualts to businesses, they've done a reasonable job of safeguarding their employees[4] .
There is a dark side to all of this, however. And I'm sure Pax will find this abhorent. Suppose you run a business and employ about 60-75 people. You've complied with any laws and/or regulations to screen incoming visitors and the extra cost of a card-key system to enter the building. Now you hear that an employee has a restraining order against her ex-spouse/boyfriend because of serious, but unspecified, threats to her safety. What do you now do?
You could
Consider: If something does happen and people are hurt, lawsuits will claim company-knowledge of an increased risk with no increase in mitigating it. Or that not enough was done by the company to mitigate the risk[5]
Most outrageous, however, is the suggestion by some trial lawyers that a corporation can deflect any negligence claims against it if the employee did not disclose the added risk to the employer. In other words, it's like telling a jury "we took standard and reasonable security precautions but since the employee didn't tell us of an increased risk, we were not able to mitigate it. Had we known of the risk, we could have mitigated it." Of course they won't tell the jury they would have fired the "risky" employee.[6]
Okay... long enough. Thanks for reading.
Footnotes
[1] Access control can be a keypad to open doors or a card-key system. Screening is typically determining that a person has legitimate business there and/or contacting an employee to come to the lobby. This allows an employee to reject the contact if needed.
[2] Here we are talking about general office buildings, manufacturing plants and other businesses not open to the public. Retail establishments, by nature, are open to the public and different rules may apply.
[3] Reasonable measures include locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry, a means of screening visitors, the use of access cards or key codes to enter certain areas of the building and employee conduct standards regarding building access.
[4] Legally speaking, that is.
[5] Lawyers know that hindsight is an exact science and use it all the time.
[6] This logic sets up a complete Catch-22. By denying responsibility because they were not told of the risk, a company can force financial responsibility to the threatened employee (or their estate). But if the employee reveals such risk, they are likely to lose their job and perhaps find it difficult to get another job. If they stay silent and a coworker is injured, their silence could be interpreted as negligence for not revealing a hazard to other employees to their employer. They are, in essense, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
To meet minimum standards for access security, many company offices now include ID badges to be visibly worn and access-control between public and working areas. Usually when this is done, there is some form of security at the front door or a screening process before people are admitted to the work area.[1]
By implementing a security-screening process the company provides a measure of security "that balances the company's obligation to a safe work environment with the cost of providing the security." In other words, they're taking "reasonable and prudent" measures to prevent injury to their people.
If a company overtly permits you and licensed others to carry at work and a single ND occurs which injures or kills another person, the company's "deep pockets" will put them center stage for a wrongful death lawsuit. A company that has no policy prohibiting or regulating arms will likewise be targeted as "negligent" for failing to control the presence of weapons.
Likewise a company that prohibits employees from having arms at work but does not take any steps to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the building will be targeted as "negligent" in the event of an assault or homicide.[2]
The company that both regulates the possession of arms and provides basic security to prevent unauthorized people from entering the work area can show that reasonable measures were in place to prevent or reduce risks to employees.[3] This means a "negligence" claim must show that the employer could have corrected a security flaw at very minimal cost or effort, but failed to do so.
Companies do not need to provide armed guards or have sufficient "tactical forces" to engage an armed intruder. Not even if a deranged ex-spouse entered a nearby business and killed seven. Nor do they need to have manned camera monitors watching every entrance point. And absent any specific threat to them or a notable trend in armed assualts to businesses, they've done a reasonable job of safeguarding their employees[4] .
There is a dark side to all of this, however. And I'm sure Pax will find this abhorent. Suppose you run a business and employ about 60-75 people. You've complied with any laws and/or regulations to screen incoming visitors and the extra cost of a card-key system to enter the building. Now you hear that an employee has a restraining order against her ex-spouse/boyfriend because of serious, but unspecified, threats to her safety. What do you now do?
You could
- provide a security guard to escort the employee to/from the building and deter an attempt on them.
- provide more security to the whole company to prevent a stalking ex-spouse from doing damage.
- allow that employee to carry a firearm if licensed.
- remove the threat to other employees by terminating the threatened employee.
Consider: If something does happen and people are hurt, lawsuits will claim company-knowledge of an increased risk with no increase in mitigating it. Or that not enough was done by the company to mitigate the risk[5]
Most outrageous, however, is the suggestion by some trial lawyers that a corporation can deflect any negligence claims against it if the employee did not disclose the added risk to the employer. In other words, it's like telling a jury "we took standard and reasonable security precautions but since the employee didn't tell us of an increased risk, we were not able to mitigate it. Had we known of the risk, we could have mitigated it." Of course they won't tell the jury they would have fired the "risky" employee.[6]
Okay... long enough. Thanks for reading.
Footnotes
[1] Access control can be a keypad to open doors or a card-key system. Screening is typically determining that a person has legitimate business there and/or contacting an employee to come to the lobby. This allows an employee to reject the contact if needed.
[2] Here we are talking about general office buildings, manufacturing plants and other businesses not open to the public. Retail establishments, by nature, are open to the public and different rules may apply.
[3] Reasonable measures include locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry, a means of screening visitors, the use of access cards or key codes to enter certain areas of the building and employee conduct standards regarding building access.
[4] Legally speaking, that is.
[5] Lawyers know that hindsight is an exact science and use it all the time.
[6] This logic sets up a complete Catch-22. By denying responsibility because they were not told of the risk, a company can force financial responsibility to the threatened employee (or their estate). But if the employee reveals such risk, they are likely to lose their job and perhaps find it difficult to get another job. If they stay silent and a coworker is injured, their silence could be interpreted as negligence for not revealing a hazard to other employees to their employer. They are, in essense, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I presume there is a sign on the gate that conspiciously declares that all vehicles are subject to search.
Visitors should realize that the only recourse the security personnel have if you refuse a search is to deny you vehicular access to the property. You can revoke your permission to search at any time. And searches are limited - for instance, they may not open sealed letters found in a briefcase nor inspect the contents of your checkbook register.
For employees, similar rules apply. You may refuse a search (and risk discipline), revoke permission, refuse to open sealed or locked containers inside your car and prevent security personnel from rifling through personal papers or items. Each carries a risk of being threatened with termination.
Because it is your car, you may also insist on only one person searching the vehicle at a time and that you be present to safeguard your investment against damage as well as revoke permission. Even if a prohibited item is found, security has no authority to seize the item - they can photograph it, however. Company property may be recovered or seized (it's the company's stuff after all) regardless of authorized possession or not.
In most cases, I would go so far as to require company agents to disclose what kind of items they are looking for and under what rules. It is important to get them to be as specific as possible. Claiming they want to look for "company property" covers everything from a computer to papers and even 3M Post-it notes. Claiming they want to look for "contraband" doesn't fly either as that could, in their mind, justify looking for a single marijuana seed.
This becomes important. If there is an allegation that a weapon may be in the vehicle and they want to read papers in your briefcase, they have overstepped by looking in places where there is no expectation to find a weapon. Likewise, if they claim company property, then defining the size of that property before the search is important. While "company documents" might be concealed under a rear seat or under the dash, removal of either is not required to satisfy their search. Searching for a computer monitor does not require them to open a small glovebox or the ashtray.
A court would be the final arbiter in determining if a company can claim grounds for termination if you refuse to let them search a place that obviously can't contain the search-target. Likewise, consent cannot be voluntary if any threats of termination are used, including euphemisms like "disciplinary action".
Yep sure it. Plus all hand carried items are subject to search as well. We do have a specific list of stuff we look for. We only have one officer searching the vehicle (having the driver open all the compartments themselves). If we do find "contraband" we do seize it. Say we find a camera, we don't look at the pics saved on it, we just turn it in to the plant manager, he goes through it and he deals with it as he sees fit. I personally think alot if it's BS myself but we do have alot of classified stuff inside the plant that doesn't need to get out.
Basically any damage caused by a firearm (intentional/unintentional) is a selective exclusion to most insurance policies. That is, insurance won't pay a dime so all financial liability rests solely on the policy holder. They could get special firearms coverage but it is prohibitively expensive. Either way the policy holder pays for your privilege to carry on their property.
Here's an interesting article on how insurance shapes carry regulations:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=621122
Here's an interesting article on how insurance shapes carry regulations:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=621122
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Great informative posts, BillCA. The gist is that the company is worried about the financial impact on the corporate entity. Changes in ergonomics, etc. were only instituted because of perceived financial impact. Little has ever been done because of an altruistic view of protecting the individual or negative consequences to the individual because of care for that person or persons.
This emphasis is what leads to the 'moral' aspect of the discussion. Since their motivations are venial as compared to emphasizing the safety and health of the employee, do their policies have moral suasion. Is the need to be employed and provide for yourself and others, a greater moral purpose than complying with a venial policy?
This emphasis is what leads to the 'moral' aspect of the discussion. Since their motivations are venial as compared to emphasizing the safety and health of the employee, do their policies have moral suasion. Is the need to be employed and provide for yourself and others, a greater moral purpose than complying with a venial policy?
Double Naught Spy
New member
You may see it that way, but it is a package deal. You are paid to perform work while adhering to the guidelines of the employer. The two really are not separate.