I would suggest that your argument concerning safety is the spurious argument for this issue, which is one of employer rights.
In the great state of OK, the legislature decided that employers could not prevent employees from keeping firearms locked up in their cars. This was challenged in court. At the present time the ruling has come down on the side of the employers being able to ban the guns.
It's not based on employer rights. Judge Kern's ruling is based on employer responsibility to respect the employee rights to a safe workplace as regulated by OSHA.
Again you argue against what nobody has said. There are many alternatives, you just don't like them or think that they are as good as what you want.
Again, in the case of my current employer, all they have to do is to ban weapons to escape liability. We have no other means of protection except hoping 911 will come in time. That happens about five percent of the time when people call 911.
This is the norm at workplaces with no weapons policies. Not all workplaces, but a great many simply prohibit the employees from having their customary means of defense. Quite a few augment this with a "zero tolerance for violence" policy.
Quote:
The OSHA rules are supposedly based on the worker's rights to a safe and healthful workplace.
Sigh. Once again, there is a difference between something that is "based on rights" and "having a right to" something.
"having a right to something" Congress says we have a right to a safe workplace.
"based on rights" Based on those rights we have the OSH Act of 1970.
Sigh away at full speed if necessary, that's the situation. I am not the one sighing or forwarding the position that OSHA rules and regulations are not based on rights.
Might be. And if so, perhaps you will get some actual valid evidence to support your contentions. And then maybe you will quit arguing with all this irrelevant stuff and get back to the actual issue, which is the "based on right" issue for the employer and the employee.
I have presented valid evidence of my contentions. I am not arguing every point to absurdity. I am responding to your arguments.
The actual issue "based on right" has been decided by one Federal court as being the right to a safe workplace.
Depriving people of their customary means of defense incurs predictable results. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Unarmed people have a much harder task when they endeavor to stop a spree shooter than armed people do.
If you need studies confined to workplaces to in order to confirm and comprehend the above statements you may be beyond our ability to help you here. Perhaps you should seek other assistance.