Does employer's policy override CCW license?

[HKuser]

If the laws get enacted and upheld then go ahead and carry, but until then, to answer the original question, yes the employer's policy will override your license while on the employer's property.

 

[Perldog007]

My head is spinning......

We have kicked around multiple victim shootings, and possible impulse shootings are used to justify creating defense free zones. Yet most work related shootings are during robberies.

Being a pizza delivery person is one of the top five most dangerous jobs in the US according to some. It's in the top ten for sure. Working at a Pizza Hut restaurant isn't a walk in the park either.

Do a google on Pizza Hut Employee Shooting, use the advanced features. WOW!!!

I can't believe that Pizza Hut has not been sued silly for having anti-self defense policies and not providing any alternative security .

There are "soft" security procedures, common sense things anyone should do to stay out of trouble. But once a crime is perpetrated against one of their employees the only strategy is to capitulate and hope for the best.

Unfortunately complying with the criminals is becoming less of a safe strategy as time goes on.

"Thrill" killings are on the rise and pizza delivery people are a favorite target. They have food and cash. They are most likely unarmed.

Reading up on this might appeal to those interested in the subject of defense tools and the workplace.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I can't believe that Pizza Hut has not been sued silly for having anti-self defense policies and not providing any alternative security .

This would be because you don't understand the law or the concept of "reasonable" when it comes to security, and don't seem to understand that a non-guns policy is NOT an anti-self defense policy. Pizza Hut is not anti-self defense in their policies. They are anti-gun. While gun folks often seem to think that these are one in the same, they are not on a practical level and are not on a legal level. The no-guns policy simply places a single limit on the types of tools that can be used for self defense.

If lawyers thought there was $ in such a lawsuit, they would be getting sued. PH has been robbed enough times that some employee would be the supposed victim for the lawyers to use.

 

[Perldog007]

This would be because you don't understand the law or the concept of "reasonable" when it comes to security, and don't seem to understand that a non-guns policy is NOT an anti-self defense policy.

Assumption contrary to fact. I am not an attorney but have at least rudimentary training in common law and negligence. Trained P.I. and certified protection officer by the IFPO.

Duty, breech of duty, injury and causation of fact.

Duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for their employees. Since pizza delivery is one of the most dangerous jobs they can't say they have met this duty.

Breech of duty by placing their employees in dangerous situations. They are also creating an especially attractive target for criminals. There is case law on this, thanks to our good buddies at Southland Corp.

Injury - their employees are getting killed and injured by criminals.

The fact that they require their employees to be unarmed and attractive targets places them at greater risk of attack, and in fact they are disproportionately attacked, killed and injured compared to the general population. The breech of duty to provide reasonable security results in injury.

A policeman's sidearm is worth more than you can get robbing a pizza delivery person on average. Why don't the thugs just report a minor disturbance and hope a lone cop shows up. Then they could overpower the officer and steal the sidearm, maybe a BUG.

Why? because as pointed out many times in this thread and supported by studies from Ralph Brown back in the day to John Lott in '99 CRIMINALS PREFER UNARMED VICTIMS

You don't seem to understand that defending yourself with a firearm is the most effective means of surviving a violent encounter with a criminal. So let's play semantics I will call them anti effective self defense to soothe your outraged sense of propriety.

Reference: 26 GARY KLECK, TARGETING GUNS 167-174 (1997). This common sense conclusion is based upon Kleck’s
analysis of the most extensive, representative, and detailed data base available relevant to victim defensive
action. This data base is compiled from the National Crime Victimization Study, between 1979 and
1985 and includes over 180,000 robberies, assaults and burglaries. His analysis is consistent with
the findings of other researchers who examined smaller data bases. Phillip Cook found that burglaries
where the victims resisted with firearms were less likely to be completed. See Phillip Cook, The
Technology of Personal Violence in 14 CRIME AND JUSTICE 57 (Michael Tonry ed., 1991).
Southwick found that robbery victims using firearms were less likely to lose cash or other valuables.
Lawrence Southwick Jr., Self-defense with guns: the consequences (1996) (Revised version of a paper
presented to the annual meetings of the Western Economic Association, San Diego, 1995 on file with the
author). Kleck and DeLorne show that those who resist robberies using a firearm are less likely to lose
property or to be injured than are victims who do not resist or who use another means to resist. Gary
Kleck and Miriam DeLorne, Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery, 9 JOURN.
QUAN. CRIMIN. 55-82. (1996)

Since I am so far out of it, school me on reasonable. How is putting people at great risk and forbidding them effective defense tools reasonable? Lay it out please.

 

[Radiki]

A policeman's sidearm is worth more than you can get robbing a pizza delivery person on average. Why don't the thugs just report a minor disturbance and hope a lone cop shows up. Then they could overpower the officer and steal the sidearm, maybe a BUG.

Why? because as pointed out many times in this thread and supported by studies from Ralph Brown back in the day to John Lott in '99 CRIMINALS PREFER UNARMED VICTIMS

Actually, I would have to say because killing a Pizza guy will get you 5-15 with a good lawyer, killing a cop will get you the needle. Just my thoughts..


BTW, between the 8 shops in my complex, about 60% (about 20 people) of us are armed, even though CCW is frowned upon, there is no official policy. If any tried anything squirrely around here, they are in for a big surprise

 

[Willie D]

Someone said this before but this all comes down to money.


If employers can reduce insurance costs by instituting no carry policies, etc. and limit liability in lawsuits then in the interests of the company, that's what they SHOULD do if they are in the business of making (and keeping) money.

Has an employer been sued because it had a no-carry rule in place, resulting in a death or injury? If that became a common occurance, the risk equation would change and employers would behave differently.

This reminds me of the Ebay thing. They felt they could lose more money in a lawsuit from the victims of the next school shooting than they made on sales of gun paraphenalia so it probably was an easy call.


If you want to change this, support caps on damages or limits of liability. You'll need bigger pockets than the ABA so good luck.




Were this me I would either a) comply, b) not work there or c) not comply and not get caught. If c) then no posting on TFL at work!

 

[Perldog007]

Here is the crazy thing - if you check it out you will find a lawsuit won on behalf of victims injured in a shooting at a PH. They sued the gun maker

That is how twisted our logic as a society has become. Pizza Hut knows they are an attractive target for robberies. It is known that submitting or not resisting in a robbery is more dangerous than resisting with a firearm. The policy created made sure the employees followed the more dangerous course.

But the maker of the BGs' gun was held liable. That's where anti-effective-self-defense mindset gets us.

It would take the right case in the right court to start changing things IMO. And more grass roots work educating our neighbors. We know the school system isn't going to help.

As much as I disapprove of what companies are doing, they are going with the flow.

Actually, I would have to say because killing a Pizza guy will get you 5-15 with a good lawyer, killing a cop will get you the needle. Just my thoughts..

Agreed 100% that's why I said overpowered in my make believe hypothetical situation. If you were able to take an officers weapon you are in deep trouble for sure. So may be the officer depending on many factors - but my guess is you would be a highly desired catch for that PD.

If employers can reduce insurance costs by instituting no carry policies, etc. and limit liability in lawsuits then in the interests of the company, that's what they SHOULD do if they are in the business of making (and keeping) money.

SHOULD? arguably from a bottom line only perspective, which is why Alan Gotlieb(sp?) over at the second amendment foundation is organizing lawsuits on behalf of workplace victims against anti EFFECTIVE self defense employers.

 

[Dave85]

Many of the business owners defending the implementation of no-gun policies on the basis of cost/liability mention the insurance considerations. To help us quantify for the purposes of discussion, how much does such a policy, as a line item, reduce your premiums?

 

[KMO]

Premiums Go Down?

If premiums were on the decline at all that might be easier to answer. Fact is, they go up every year at a ridiculous rate. A better question is, what costs would a business incur in a civil lawsuit if a customer was injured by a badge-heavy or over-zealous employee?

 

[smallshot]

cmon guys, this is a no brainer. It's a CONCEALED carry question right? So go to work in a concealed manor and if any one finds out - shoot them. Just a thought -- but I could be wrong.

 

[Perldog007]

I am curious to know what kind of savings we are talking about as well.

Here is some data on the cost from workplace mortality I found while surfing http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp

Nearly nine out of 10 retail cashiers who died on the job last year were murdered.

Restaurant and hotel management also saw a high percentage of workplace murders, with homicides accounting for 80% of workplace deaths. Cab and limousine drivers were also targeted. Fifty-nine percent of drivers and chauffeurs killed on the job were murdered, much higher than the percentage killed in highway accidents.

But highway accidents were the biggest overall killer in 2002, accounting for a quarter of all worker deaths. Falls killed 13%. Men were still, by far, the most likely to be killed on the job. Ninety-two percent of all workplace fatalities were male.

Among the 441 women who died on the job, though, the chief cause of death was homicide.

On that page they also quote labor statistics from Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002.

Drivers-sales workers was the fifth most dangerous job. So when the Pizza delivery person with a chl is forbidden to carry their legally licensed defense tool I am thinking reckless endangerment.

Perhaps one of the folks with more formal legal training can expound on that and why those policies fly.

With the available data on Criminals, Carry permits, and the relation between increased armed citizens and effect on crime the insurance companies must still be working off of Kellerman........

 

[PT111]

what costs would a business incur in a civil lawsuit if a customer was injured by a badge-heavy or over-zealous employee?

Robber comes in, employee pulls out CCW, misses robber but hits and kills a customer. Better be a pretty good size company to be able stay in business after that and still afford insurance premiums.

 

[Perldog007]

Robber comes in, employee pulls out CCW, misses robber but hits and kills a customer. Better be a pretty good size company to be able stay in business after that and still afford insurance premiums.

Pretty good hypothetical scenario to discuss possible risks with. I found two actual cases where PH delivery drivers with carry permits who justifiably stopped bad guys, and one case in a store where a ccw permit holder stopped robbery justifiably. All were fired of course.

One case where a Papa John employee had a beef with a customer and pulled a drive by on the customer's house four days later. No evidence in the reporting that the drive by actor was a permit holder.

Many more cases of PH employees murdered by robbers when they were not armed.

That's not an exhaustive study - just googling during lunch time.

I am going to have to search for a situation like the one you posted. If you know of such an incident please post up. The results would be interesting.

 

[divemedic]

If you don't like it, get another job.

How about, if I don't like it, carry anyway? Since there is no legal penalty for CCW against an employer's rules, the only consequence to being caught is getting fired, and that is only if your employer finds out.

To all of you employers that claim you are doing it to reduce your insurance costs:

Since when does your desire to make a profit trump my right to defend myself? and when I obey your rule and get shot- are you going to man up and support my family?

I didn't think so.

 

[Dave85]

If premiums were on the decline at all that might be easier to answer. Fact is, they go up every year at a ridiculous rate.

I'll accept that. I would assume, like most costs, that they are on the rise. But rising or falling, any workplace rule which represents a specific savings on an insurance policy will be quantified on the insurance policy.

A better question is, what costs would a business incur in a civil lawsuit if a customer was injured by a badge-heavy or over-zealous employee?

I suppose that is an interesting hypothetical legal question. Maybe a lawyer can answer that. My question, to the business owners posting here, was intended to gather real insurance data. How much, in dollars, does implementing a strict no-gun policy save per month? There need be no guessing to answer it. If it is a box on his checklist, the insurance agent will know how much it takes off your premium.

 

[Perldog007]

Actually Kmoffit's question has basis in reality. I do not know the dollar cost involved but have been involved in such a case. Not being under any kind of gag order we can discuss.

A taxi-cab driver at Union Station was soliciting passengers at the station entrance from the Amtrak Trains instead of sitting in his cab in the que as station policy required. Union Station is considered private property of LaSalle Partners Inc.

The cab driver refused to comply with requests and then instructions to return to his cab. When he was detained he became combative and bit me on the arm. My partner and I forcefully pushed him against a wall and handcuffed him. While processing his barring notice he was handcuffed to a bench with one hand as our policy dictated. He tried to bite me again and got a right cross for his trouble.

He was formally barred and photographed and released per policy. He called the police and reported that he had been beaten repeatedly for two hours and robbed. My partner and I cooperated fully with the responding officer and consented to searches of ourselves, work areas and lockers.

The cab driver also went to the emergency room. ER Doctors found no visible injuries and told him to go home and pop some tylenol. The officer responding to his complaint found no probable cause for any arrest or report.

The cab driver sued. The insurance company hired the man who represented Sugar Ray Leonard's wife in the divorce to represent me. During deposition I was asked about the allegation of "brutally and continuously beating the plaintiff for two hours while he was handcuffed to a chair"

I explained that it did not happen and since my partner and I were both trained pugilists the medical report was inconsistent with the allegation. I testified under oath that I had broken one inch cement blocks with bare handed blows. My partner was a former correctional officer at Lorton Prison and an amateur boxer competing with other correctional officers.

No way the guy was beaten for two hours with no visible injuries. The only visible injuries were the teethmarks on my arm. The insurance company settled. My employer not only retained me but promoted me twice after the incident. Of course we were unarmed.

The next company I worked for was armed. Everything from banks to public housing and everything in between. We had more people than Union Station Security. Our insurance was lower because we had fewer employees than the total station and no large facility with an attractive nuisance. We also had fewer incidents because, get this, criminals don't like to mess with armed people.

If somebody gets injured by an employee overzealous or not there will be a beef. Likewise if an employee is injured on the job we have a potential beef. Any claim means higher rates.

What is unproven to me is that having employees able to carry defense tools with proper licensing will result in more claims. The people forwarding this seem to have no hard data. It would be usefull to see some basis in fact for this assumption.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am not an attorney...

Yep.

...but have at least rudimentary training in common law and negligence.

And yet you don't understand that if an employer provides a reasonable level of security, they have fulfilled their legal duty to protect employees and patrons alike. Simple things like lighting, security cameras, etc. usually suffice for being reasonable security measures.

Here is the crazy thing - if you check it out you will find a lawsuit won on behalf of victims injured in a shooting at a PH. They sued the gun maker

So why didn't they sue and win against PH? Simple. They didn't have a winnable case. Just curious, what case was it where the gunmaker was successfully sued?

All I find is the Glock and McMann's Roadrunner suit
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/articles/pizza.php
where PH people were killed and neither the gun seller or Glock were found liable. http://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/2001/150801.html

 

[Perldog007]

And yet you don't understand that if an employer provides a reasonable level of security, they have fulfilled their legal duty to protect employees and patrons alike. Simple things like lighting, security cameras, etc. usually suffice for being reasonable security measures.

Again, hypothesis contrary to fact. I do understand that employers are required to provide a reasonable level of security to satisfy their duty to meet a standard of care for their employees.

There is a difference between Security Awareness which is a part of the protection process and providing protection. Lights and Cameras fall under Security awareness. They do nothing to protect the lives of employees in the face of rampage shootings or robberies We watch robberies recorded on camera every night on cable T.V. if we are so inclined.

Where is the evidence that cameras stop robberies? Cameras preserve evidence. That protects the cashier how? A phone to call police who will arrive too late to stop the crime 95% of the time does what?

We have evidence that permit holders stop robberies.

Please explain to me how providing lights and cameras covers the threat matrix for cashiers, delivery drivers and hotel employees in light of the disproportionately high percentage of them being murdered on the job.

Kindly point out a mass shooting that has been stopped by cameras and lights. Examples of such stopped by armed citizens have already been presented in the thread.

Explain how this is reasonable for cashiers when nine out of ten of them dying at work are murdered? Lighting and cameras do what to mitigate this? Especially in retail settings where there is a high risk of robbery. We know submission is not the safest action.

For "no weapons" to be a reasonable policy, it would have to proven that licensed defense tools are more dangerous to employees than defense free zones. This has no basis in fact and has been debunked.

What is reasonable? That only people who don't follow the rules be armed in our workplaces? Exactly how does that keep me safe and how is it reasonable?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reasonable

We know that your safest bet in a robbery is to resist with a firearm. So the only arguments have to be based on permit holders "going postal" or committing criminal acts. This is invalid as pointed out earlier because we have verifiable data demonstrating that CHL holders are more law abiding than the rest of the public.

Then we are only left with the argument that there would be more accidents than defensive uses. Again hard date proves this false. Actually resisting with a firearm is safer for everybody including the criminal. Most defensive gun uses do not involve shooting. More likely that a worker will choke to death on something they ingest or be poisoned than accidentally shot to death.

Remember that police are five times more likely to shoot a the wrong person than an armed citizen, from the FBI crime statistics.

I would concede the point that current measures are considered reasonable, by Sarah Brady and people who think like her. This is only in the light of accepted anti EFFECTIVE self defense bias.


http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/articles/pizza.php The case was appealed and ruling went against the plaintiffs. So I was in error stating that the plaintiffs sustained a claim against Glock and the gun sellers listed in the suit.

Still telling that the plaintiff lawyer thought there was a better chance of suing the gun maker than the employer. How is it reasonable that the gun maker was more responsible than the employer who chose to make the workplace safe for the murderers?

That tells me the standard of reasonable care needs to be re-examined.

When the constitution was written it was "reasonable" that rights were for white males who owned property. It was once reasonable in this country to have children working in sweatshops to keep wages low.

Limiting concealed defense tools to police and a very small subsection of society was considered reasonable almost everywhere twenty years ago. Most of us own guns older than that. Some of us have shoes and kids older than that. We changed that standard, time to change the workplace standard.

 

[David Armstrong]

I advocate Government having MORE control over the power of Businesses to interfere in private matters, such as the very private decision to be responsible for one's own safety. How that interferes with the market place is beyond me.

That has become obvious. As it is quite clear to those who actually have to deal with the problem I can only assume it is a result of your lack of experience in that area.

Making workplaces safe for criminals interferes with the market place. Show me where allowing CCW at work has interefered with the marketplace.

Again you make an assumption that is not in evidence. There is no valid proof that not allowing CCW in your business makes a business safer. Apocryphal stories are nice, but prove nothing.

Nyet Tovarich,

Ahh yes, the ever popular ad hominem response. Usually it is a pretty good indicator that one cannot defend their position with logic, facts and reason. But I would point out that if you are trying to attach a label, the communist position of the state being able to decide these things is far closer to your position than the capitalist free-market position I have advocated.

The stories I googled up and posted links to all support CHL in the workplace with real life events.

Again, a few stories do not constitute evidence. We would not accept that tactic if it was done by the anti-gunners, I equally do not accept it from the pro-gunners.

Once again you reply with nothing but rhetoric.

As do you, I might point out.

I have shown that choking deaths from ingested objects are more prevalent than accidental firearm deaths.

So what? Unless you are attempting to eliminate all risk, comparisons such as that are totally irrelevant. Once again, my point is that the safety issue is irrelevant. The issue to me is strictly the rights of the employer to expect workers to follow his wishes in his workplace.

BTW that argument if true would be a darn good reason not to carry anywhere, and we know that's not a good idea.

Again irrelevant. Whether or not it is a good idea has nothing to do with rights.

There is no right to run a business any way you want.

Agreed, just as there is no right to carry a firearm with you everywhere you go.

When an employer tells me I can't have any defensive tools on me or in my vehicle that means I have no RKBA on their time or to and from work on my time.

And I would support your right to carry to and from work, as that is your right, depending on various factors (ie, is the empoyer providing the vehicle) as I have previously stated.

That's just deaths from multiple victim shootings.

So in other words this number you have been tossing around is only one small part of the story. That is exactly my point. One needs to look at the whole picture in order to make accurate and valid claims. It appears that has not been done here.

So you cannot refute that evidence exists that legal handguns in the workplace stop violence, and that disarming chl holders encourages violence,

I have made no claims either way. Again, my point on this part of the argument, which I consider totally irrelevant to the main issue, is that there is no valid evidence on the issue one way or another. If you can provide a study that compares workplace violence and death between CCW-friendly businesses and non-CCW business I'd love to look at it. My main issue, again, is that it doesn't matter in the context of employer/employee rights.

I argue that employers may not capriciously place their employees in danger.

And I argue that nobody has provided anything to support that concept. In fact, there is significant evidence that employers work to reduce the danger to their employees. You might disagree with the effectiveness of those measures, but it seems to work pretty good.

The LE and Military are not licensed citizens carrying concealed weapons to work. They hunt things and look for trouble. So the comparison suffers on it's face.

Not real sure what that has to do with the fact that both groups apparently have a problem with ADs/NDs. In fact, as these are the two businesses where we see the greatest number of trained individuals carrying at work it would seem to be a pretty good example.

Laws are on the books for the parking lot issue. One of these is in court being challenged. In Florida a business open to the public cannot discriminate against CHL holders but I think they may retain control of their employees. They cannot however ban guns at their business if they are open to the public.

So none of these have to do with a private employer prohibiting an employee from carrying concealed while at work, which is what I think this thread is supposed to be about.

I had previously assumed that people who would own defense tools would be pro self defense.

You assume that those who support employers rights are not pro self defense. I would suggest that assumption is quite flawed.

 

[David Armstrong]

How far can a company go before you will admit they've gone too far?

One might equally ask how far can an employee go before you think they have gone too far? Is it OK to take a job based on you not smoking at home, then you smoke at home?
For me the line is fairly simple--an employer should have the right to establish rules that deal with what goes on at the business and/or with the business equipment. You have a right to free speech, but I think an employer has the right to insist you not use a company computer or company time to do private e-mail. I think they have the right to ban firearms at work, but not in your vehicle. I believe they have the right to control personal behavior (smoking, drinking, etc.) if they are providing the benefits based on that behavior. In other words, if they are paying for your insurance they have the right to insist you not smoke. If you are paying fo rit, they can still say no smoking at work, but should not be able to prohibit it at home.

Why should I have to trade away some of my safety (even if the odds are relatively good) to keep my job?

Again, there is no evidence to indicate you trade away any of your safety based on a no-guns company policy.