Does employer's policy override CCW license?

Komoffit, i understand your position. But seriously, you still have a dangerous work place, even with out the guns. Work place violence happens, alot. Now instead of allowing people to defend them selvs, they are in a enviroment were they are sitting ducks. With no ability to defend them selvs at all.

I mean, how could you live with your self, if someone came in during office hours and shoots up your employees, and they could do nothing but blindly panic and die while running for the exits? Id feel a little safer in such a enviroment if there were security present. But, most Corprate entities that hire security guards, almost never get armed guards. Talk about a waste of time and money. Not only can they not stop any threats to the building and premisis, they cant save any lives, or help anyone in any way. All they are there for is two reasons. 1 Bullet spounge, they will take rounds first before anyone else does, allowing the others more time to escape. 2, to call 911.

I sure hope, your not like the other moronic corprate talking heads, that wont step up and provide adaquate security for there employees. Especialy when you create a gun free target rich victim zone, like the one you currently.
 
Don't blame Kmoffett. He is the victim of our contemporary culture. A contemporary culture crafted by shyster plaintiff attorneys, shyster legislator attorneys and shyster lawyer judges and shyster insurance companies who are owned for the most by shyster lawyers.

Suppose you let permit holders carry and one has a ND that injures another employee. You won't see the end of that problem for the next dozen years. Or suppose there are a group of employees that feel threatened by the presence of these CCW holders carrying on the job. That mere perception by a group of other employees has created a hostile work environment which will open you up to EEO aggrivation for a decade. How much money do you want to spend on that problem when it was avoidable?

You let legal permit holders carry, then one of your black employees wants to carry. No, hes not a permit holder. It then becomes apparent that you are discriminating against black employees. You are opening yourself up to years of agony from civil rights shysters and earned the emnity of all the rest of the black employees. Would you like to preside over a snakepit like that? Know why the Post office and other government agencies are so slow and incompetant? They spend half their time on EEO B.S.

You let permit holders carry and the local Sara Brady bunch have press conferences with your building/storefront in the background. Have them "warn the innocent public" about your company sanctioned wild west shoot em up atmosphere that will surely kill the next customer and a bunch of bystander and a busload of elementary children driving by. Want to bet what happens to your customer base? What good is your job without customers? what good are your 'rights' without a job?

No matter how you feel about the issue, the simple fact is that if your co-workers were responsible adults practicing good mental hygene there would not be a problem. However, most of your coworkers are still infants with a 'gimmie gimmie' mentality and do not practice good mental hygene. The folks that are your customers, suppliers, regulators and others are 'sheeple'. They want to feel good, no matter what the reality. These are the same morons that sit on juries and give multi million awards to plaintiffs because they have shyster lawyers who attended drama school.

Sorry that I come across as a misanthrope, but 30 years in the business world as a worker and as an owner have opened my eyes to the reality that is America today. If I were making something, it would not be in this country, and any other business that I owned would be headquartered in a tropical country with lax taxation and regulations.

Beat your chest, your 'rights' have been trumped by a femminized culture that values security and feeling good.
 
I get up early, (5.30 am) and I would love to take my P226 with me specially when winter comes and the sun takes a little longer to come out.

At the end, it´s a decision I make. I take enough precautions so I will not be traveling through drug infested neighborhoods (extra ten/twenty) blocks. Maybe I´m not ready for the worst all the time, but I carry a Spyderco and a pepper spray while I wait for the bus. And I think that´s almost enough.

I mean... the chances of a person dying from an aneurism or heart-attack are bigger than the chances of of being robbed and killed in a fight (if the BG want´s my wallet, he can take it, no big deal), but I´m not checking my blood pressure three times a day, or getting brainscanned every three months. There´s always the risk of "something", but we learn to live with it wothout going "Monk".

If I really feel the need to carry a gun to go to work, then I might be needing to change my work, or to move to a safer place.

And yes, I would feel safer if I could carry my gun anywhere I want.
 
I wouldn't like it. But you have to put yourself in his shoes to bring it in to perspective. He's tryin to work and feed his family, and do good at work. What he's doing with his policy may be wrong ideally, but what other choice does he have? He could instate a gun friendly policy for you (hypothetically) (AND 599 other guys!) and then what? Odds are no terrorist team would attack the place, so it'd be a feel good policy for you.

How could he live with himself (or keep his job), if someone was showing their piece off at the water cooler and you or your bud dropped it, dischaging and killing a co worker? What if a lone gunman came in and began shooting people and fire was returned, missing and striking a co worker? Will the families of the co worker not sue the company because hey the workers had the chance to defend and dropped a shot under stress?

So he's CCW committed. Thats fine. Can someone point out in the bylaws where he'd be a babysitter for 600 people. Don't try to say that in a gun friendly enviroment that everyone (I mean EVERYONE) would stay holstered ALL the time. People would get complacent over time. How would YOU handle it if you were the owner of the outfit?

You only have so many choices. Climb the corporate ladder and change the policy, buy the company and change the policy, or go get another job. He likes the job and chose his family over 600 co workers is the way I see it. Suprise suprise.

I'd get another job. Realistically though, I think his position should be respected.
 
I have a CCW in South Carolina, yet among the restrictions are that I cannot carry in an establishment that sells liquor for on premises consumption nor can I bring a concealed weapon in a person's home without their permission. Why should a place of business be treated differently than a person's home for carry purposes?
 
Unless the poster or anyone else is in the firm position to determine both policy and punishment/enforcement, I don't see how his statement was intellectually dishonest--especially since he was speaking from the third person POV as it pertained to his company's mindset.
Click to expand...

Nyet Tovarich. The man said.....
Since I cannot possibly know the experience, mental state, or level of firearms training of all employees, I have to enforce a strict "no weapons" policy for on-duty time.
Click to expand...

Don't want to start a poo flinging competition but I don't read third person in the above. I don't fault the man for doing what he has to do to make a living. I do the same, working in an anti-gun state for an anti-gun company. I do not carry to work.

I took exception with the stated reason for enforcing the policy as explained in the quote above. Now coming from a Brady Center spokesperson that kind of pronouncement would be expected. Coming from a
...committed CCW man,
Click to expand...
it does not ring true.

I understand the reality fof today's world. I respect the rights of employers. I do not agree with my employers policy but abide by it because by accepting the position I made a contract to follow their rules. As long as I want their money I am duty bound to do that.


I cannot, will not, and do not respect that kind of logic coming from somebody who calls themselves a committed CCW man. To my pro-self defense and pro RKBA mind such is nonsense. YMMV.
 
ShootemDowm - Yes in P.A. employers can forbid persons in their employ from carrying with a CHL. I worked for an insurance company that forbade it's field agents in PA (who did not report to offices, they worked out of their personal vehicles at client sites) from carrying weapons.

They had fired people for violating the policy and their actions had been upheld according to our training.

This information came from the company, hence my advice to consult an attorney licensed in PA.
 
Some folks need to start their own business, grow it to the point of having several hundred or more employees, then come back and tell us what all the lawyers and insurance leeches say about guns on the premises.

Not saying I agree with it. Just saying a lot of folks are pointing fingers at places they have never been and never will be.

So go start a business, get up to hundreds and hundreds of employees, then come back and let us know how you went about making everyone in your Utopian Widget Company happy and satisfied.

Jeff
 
Whew! My ears (eyes) are still ringing. Hey, lighten up a bit on my company's policy (and the pot-shots at me). Our policy certainly does not extend to the personal life of our employees. Carry at will, for heaven's sake. But, with the state of liability law today, frivolous lawsuits and insurance claims, and unpredictable actions on the part of employees, show me an employer anywhere that feels comfortable with allowing 600+ employees to be armed while representing the employer. Call it CYA? Yes, you’re right! That is not elitist, it’s called business survival. If you have an alternate point of view, let’s have it without all the name-calling.
Click to expand...

I said your statement explaining why you had to enforce the policy sounded more like an elitist or hoplophobe. The days of name calling on the internet ended when we let all you Microsoft (L)users on here :D j/k DON"T KILL ME.

Seriously I miss the old flame wars (obviously, huh???)

My issue is not with the policy. Given the civil liability and political climate I understand it. I think we should work to change it but I understand it is what it is.

My old man spent a lifetime in commercial Insurance I have been a licensed producer until my conscience caught up with me.

Companies do what they have to do. Employees do what they have to do. Saying that you enforce the policy because you can't know the mental state, level of training, etc of every employee is what I take exception to.

To me that is an elitist hoplophobic anti gun argument. When you go out with your concealed weapon can you know with certainty what your mental state will be at all times before you take that weapon off? Can you know if your training is sufficient for any situation you may enounter?

Nope, you can't. Will anybody bent on doing evil respect that policy? Nope. Will decent law abiding people who could stop a person hell bent on a mass shooting abide by the policy? Yep, most likely they will play by the rules and be helpless against any kind of determined violent attack.

Corporations are entities unto themselves. Insurance companies seem to have fixated on gun issues since the mid-60's. When I had to pick up a check after my accident the Nationwide office knew I had a CHL. Part of my claim was for cracked grips on my carry revolver when their insured T-boned my motorcycle with his jeep.

When I arrived at the office, there was a hastily made cardboard "sign" prohibiting concealed weapons in that office. It was kind of funny. Since I was taking prescription morphine and oxicontin(sp?) of course I was unarmed.

They knew I was in pain and medicated too, but to their feeble hoplophobic minds a "gun nut" would be carrying his gun anyway. Like I said kind of funny.

I think we should work to make insurance companies use actuarials instead of the flawed Kellerman study for setting rates and policies.

In the meantime I play by the rules. And if somebody says something on here that sounds like Sara wrote I will respond. Hopefully civilly.

Knowing what gun stores pay for insurance I can only imagine at the hardship a company would face allowing it's employees to carry. It's stupid but it is the way it is. You ain't helping with your statement.

if you feel that way about your people, that you can't trust them I hope I don't have to do business with them. If you had said Insurance rates would murder us so we do what we have to do to make money that would be different.
 
Said Enough...

Thanks Jaysouth for your common sense approach on this subject. Our contemporary culture simply must be factored into this circumstance. I've said my piece...Keep firing boys...
 
Some folks need to start their own business, grow it to the point of having several hundred or more employees, then come back and tell us what all the lawyers and insurance leeches say about guns on the premises.
Click to expand...

All sounds good but there's a difference between abiding by a policy and agreeing with it. No one would've make a comment if he simply abided, it's the agreement that we take issue with.

With all the theoretical talk about lawsuits and civil liability, all it takes is for one workplace shooting to spawn a civil suit against the employer whose "NO FIREARMS" policy prevented victims from protecting themselves and it all turns around.
 
While this discussion has taken twists and turns there is something to be gained IMHO.

We responsible gun owners know that employers are better off letting licensed people carry to work. We don't carry because we believe it makes the world more dangerous. We carry because it makes the world safer. Of this we are sure.

There has been talk of "hostile work environment complaints" by people scared of guns. What happened to the reasonable person standard.

Let's talk about hostile. You get trained, you get fingerprinted and submit to a background check, you get a license to carry a concealed weapon. Then your employer says that license is invalid and they make your workplace safe for rapists, thugs, muggers, and murderers. That's hostile to your well being.
Such is also hostile to decency and common sense.

Time to put the people who are wrong on the defensive. We should not be backing up. Rough litigators should be doing legal violence on our behalf so we can sleep at night.

Much has been said about liability. How many problems have licensed carriers caused in the workplace?

How many times have we heard news reports of killers in gun free zones causing much death and pain?

Contemporary culture disagrees. We have made headway though. When I got into shooting sports and RKBA activism in 1982 no states were "shall issue". Now most states allow their citizens to be armed.

The idea was radical. When Florida went shall issue twenty years ago the media had kittens. Little goat smelling cow shaped kittens. They were wrong. They are wrong about schools and they are wrong about the workplace.

We just recognized Dr. King with his national holiday. Remember what the man said - "We shall overcome". Time to take employers where we have taken 38 states.

Perhaps every time a criminal injures a person in a crime safe defense free zone the insurance companies need to be sued? How about the people who took the responsibility to tell you that you had to check your rights at the door? Shouldn't they be sued if you get hurt because you were defenseless?

How do we ask our employers what they are doing for our safety without putting our jobs in danger? Perhaps by proxy?

The state mandates that you put your kids in school then they make the schools a safe environment for predators? Somebody needs to be sued.

The anti-side does not hesitate to sue, why should we? We have right on our side. Can we not find some hungry lawyers?

Saying that's just the way it is? Sorry boys and girls. Had the men of my ancestor pvt J. Nickleson's time thought that way we would still be colonies.

If you are willing to accept things as they are you are a realist. If you insist that the status quo cannot be changed then you are a defeatist.

I used to be Aaron Zelman's webmeister a million years ago. He used to have some good letters over at JPFO telling suits about their stupidity when they insisted on creating safe work environments for rapists and criminals. Think I will surf on over to JPFO and look for some form letters.

Then I will send them to some big wigs registered like. They will be roundfiled but G-d forbid if somebody gets hurt on their watch it will be able to be proven that the company knew or should have known that they were creating a dangerous situation for the person that got hurt.

Duty, breach of duty, injury, causation of fact. That's negligence baby. You kids that are so inclined keep on talking about how bad it is. Those of you so inclined start thinking about how to fix it.

Everybody!!! - Shoot safe :D and for now, think hard before taking your gun to work. Tough choice, make it wisely.
 
My employer has a no guns policy. I recently went into an rarely used area of our office and found that he kept 2 guns there. I returned later to make take photo's of them along with a copy of the days newspaper. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Nobody but my wife knows i carry, but i will not allow myself to be a victim without a fight. That applies to work or free time. :eek:
 
I had one employer that kept two guns in his restaurant. When the man found out that i owned handguns and was into shooting he told me I could bring my gun to work. He also showed me where he kept his.

I am not sure what he told the insurance folks. He was a rarity. His employees meant more to him than his silver. Very rare in today's world. Very sad day when he sold the place and retired.
 
Most of you are making bad assumpitons;

Used to be, the the Personnel manager was one of the guy and filling that slot until he moved up the ladder. It was not a plum job and did not have any bonuses for production, sales commissions. etc. Now the job is filled with a "professional Human Resources Specialist". If you look around, most of these so called professional specialists are minority or female. Their career path is not to go up in the company, buy to move to a bigger company or govenrment agency. They are not beholden to the corporate power structure for their future, cause it ain't with that company unless a Fortune 100 company.

They are not issued common sense because it doen'st exist anymore. They can't apply common sense to a given situration because common sense does not fit government dictates or the legal system

Back to an earlier post, this happened for real, A company sponsored a volleyball tournament for a charity event. The team attracted phycially fit yuppies who were interested in playing volleyball and having a good time, naturally.

The two lesbians approached the company and offered the following B.S. Lesbians, gays and transgendered persons are not attracted to such activities as volleyball, you the company are discriminating against us. What do you plan to do about it?

The company sloughted it off. The lesbos went to GLAD , the Gay Legal Assistance Defense fund. GLAD brought a suit on their behalf. After the company's insurance company looked over the case, they settled for an undisclosed setlement. The next year, the companies liabiltiy insurance premiums doubled(high five firgures to start with).

Suppose these lesbians, or some other protected class were looking for trouble to start. Can you imagine a better place than white makes carrying guns in the workplace to reestablish their dominance? B.S. you say.

well, that's the kind of thing that companies have to worry about these days. The reason jobs are going overseas is not bloated capitalists wanting to screw workers, its a shyster legal system and contemporary culture that demonizes profits and the American way of life.

Don't assert commons sense as an argument is this thread, common sense does'nt exist and will get you fined for being a racist or imprisoned for civil rights violations.

BY THE WAY, did you give to United Way? GLAD is one of their 'participant' organizations.

You chest beaters go start your own company and let the nightmares begin.
 
Jaysouth,

You're spot-on, 100% correct.

Human Resources "professionals" are the biggest pain in the butt a business can have. I constantly had to remind our HR nags that what THEY did cost us money. What I and the rest of the 1600 employees did MADE the money from which they were paid.

Also reminded them that they did damn little that temps from Administaff couln't also do--and for far less money and way less redass factor.

After leaving law enforcement, I found that every single employer I've worked for sincde has a "strict no firearms policy" for employees.

I simply bought a nifty little briefcase from Black Eagle that has a hidden holster compartment so cleverly built in that nine out of ten non-gun types would never be able to find it.

Been carrying a small semi-auto in it since day one.

I'm not advocating breaing the law--a company's "policy" can never supercede state or federal law. If I ever get caught and get fired, for me, it was worth the risk.

At my last agency before I retired, I knew that probably ten percent of our employees regularly carried some sort of a handgun with them or on them while in the offices. Downtown Dallas after the sun goes down can get interesting. NO way I was going to tell them "NO."

But we still had to "support" our no-guns policy. Does that make me a hypocrite? Nope. Just means that while I played both sides of the fence, I only gave the minimum lip service required to the no-guns policy, while working to protect those who discreetly and responsibly sidestepped it.

And again, I challenge anyone to promote to the corner offices and then you'll see it's not as easy or simple to make all things work.

Jeff
 
If you start a business, DO NOT hire or staff a Personnel department(human resources, as the leeches call it)

Out source to Aministaff or somebody like that. If they screw up, you can sue them, unlike an employee on your payroll. Let a smart secretary interface between management and the contractor.

You do not need a HR function in your company. The people you hire in HR are not team players and do not share your companie's visions and goals. They are there to enhance their resume and get a bigger job elsewhere.

Get even smarter and do not hire any employees. Sub everything out and have offices large enough for the executive staff and a couple of clerks and secretaries.

Get even smarter and do not EVER manufacture anything. Source it offshore and save enougth grief so you can enjoy retirement.

The people that are really screwed are the regular guys that punch a time clock and carry a lunch bucket. If you are under 40 and working in a blue collar environment, get a job with the country or upgrade your skills. That job, if in a union environment or a highly regulated state like MA or CAL, won't be around long enough for your to retire.

Forget about your CCW, you got bigger problems
 
Fine, but what if you need the carry gun for after work and before work ? say you travel through drug infested neighborhoods to get home ?
Click to expand...
There is a pretty basic rule of thumb here folks. It is that you don't ever willing go anyplace with a gun that you would not willingly go without a gun. If you (generic you, not this particular poster) are that worried about where you work, you should probably be looking for work someplace else. That is a pretty basic tactics concept. Remember, the gun is to provide one part of a personal security plan, and it is the "everything else has failed" part. Too many look at it as a "if I have the gun I don't need to concern myself with anything else" part of the plan.

What I've wondered is, that in attempting to limit corporate responsibility by creating "gun free" policies, doesn't a business in effect take on the responsibility if any of their customers or employees are then directly harmed by that policy when they are left defenseless in an attack.
Click to expand...
No. There is no liability (generall, as it varies some from state to state) unless one can show a pattern of danger that the business should have been aware of or a specific threat the business created/had responsibility for that they did not warn you of. The gun free policy actually provides some protection, as it is a condition that you are aware of and voluntarily choose to accept.

Then your employer says that license is invalid and they make your workplace safe for rapists, thugs, muggers, and murderers. That's hostile to your well being.
Such is also hostile to decency and common sense.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't happen. Your employer says your license is valid. Your employer doesn't make the workplace safe for criminals. Most folks working and visiting there don't feel unsafe, nobody has taken away your license. The employer simply says if you choose to voluntarily enter on my property I expect you to follow certain rules. Just as you expect your employer to follow the established rules that they have agreed to abide by.
 
But, with the state of liability law today, frivolous lawsuits and insurance claims, and unpredictable actions on the part of employees, show me an employer anywhere that feels comfortable with allowing 600+ employees to be armed while representing the employer. Call it CYA? Yes, you’re right! That is not elitist, it’s called business survival.
Click to expand...

Do you allow people to drive an automobile into your parking lot? Boiled down, isn't this allowing the State's licensing process to give you cover? I mean, isn't an automobile accident many times more likely to occur on your property than any gun-related incident?

More to the point, however:

Life is a balance of risk and reward. If you want to grow the business, you have to risk it's assets from time to time. This is elementary. I would forward the notion that these risks are far more serious and relevant to the average worker than that posed by an employee licensed to carry a concealed weapon doing so on company property.

The United States of America was founded by people who wagered their fortunes as well as their lives. When we decide that financial security, for ourselves or those in our charge, outweighs the liberties which justify this republic, you strike a blow against it's very existence. Seriously. If your concerns are for yourself, consider what you are trading for that security. If your concerns are for those who rely on you, please understand that the knowledge that you may have to make a decision that sacrifices at least the immediate well-being of a subordinate for the greater good is the largest portion of the weight which rests on any leader's head.

I do understand that taking a stance on this subject is far from an easy thing. That is why the dismantling of such an onerous policy by someone in a position to do so would be an act of courageous principle. It would be the type of act that defines a great man. And, while I will stop short of characterizing the support of such policies as cowardly, I will say that such a stance is neither courageous nor principled. In the balance hangs this republic and all it should stand for. Really.

I believe strongly that dedication to principle is the only hope I have to live a life greater than can be eulogized with "he really C'd his A!"
 
At the risk of blaspheming on this board, I have to side with the employers. If you don't like an employer's policy, don't work there. It is very simple. You agree to follow his (or her) rules when you sign on. Anytime you want, you can leave.

Someone posted earlier that they work at a bank, and worry that someone might come in wanting to rob the bank. This person then asked if they are supposed to take it in the rear. I say that if by taking it in the rear you mean giving the bank's fully insured money to the robber, then yes, take it in the rear. If somebody comes into my office looking to steal money, I would infinitely rather have an employee give all the money in the office (because
that is all insured and I don't care if it gets stolen) than try and pull out a gun like an idiot and start shooting.

Besides, if some employee pulls a gun out, even if they are in the right and defending the building, and they get hurt doing so, my insurance has to pay for their medical costs. Those will be WAY higher than replacing anything that might have been stolen.

I know somebody is going to jump in and say, "What about some crazed drug addict that is just looking to rape/murder everybody in the office?" If you are honestly worried about that happening, you need to leave wherever you are working and get somewhere safer (maybe inside a barricaded bedroom you would feel safe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top