Employers Limitations On Weapons

I doubt most employees are worth having insurance on. Where I work, the corporation doesn't even insure the single owner.

Say, by the way, how do you folks decide which laws to obey and which to ignore? I realize that there is such a thing as civil disobediance but that's on the left side of the aisle, I think.
 
I wonder why mega-corporations are like that? I wonder if it has to do with shareholder profit expectations? I wonder who the shareholders are? Hm.

I didn't realize I was becoming a psychopath when I formed my corporation. Maybe I shouldn't be paying unskilled people 30% over minimum wage for jobs a 12yr old could do?

I guess I'm not a very good psychopath.
 
Corporations act exactly as psychopaths, no guilt, no shame, people, the world are disposable in the attainment of their goals.
Click to expand...


I have never heard a better description of big business. when no single person is responsible, people will do terrible things. (see "war" for examples)

A guy here was nearly killed when the tornado went through joplin. he worked at a group home for mentally disabled men. With the storm bearing down, he threw a mattress on his charges and weighted it down with his body, and the building was shredded around him. he was dead center of the worst hit section, and thrown more than 50 feet, iirc. he was there, working, on the job. His medical bills are at 2.5 million so far. The insurance company that covers the home's employees refused his claims.

You guys know as well as I do that they wouldn't get away with it, they would be sued, they would lose, and face serious repercussions, but that company still decided to take the wild chance that they would get away with refusing his claim. The reason they gave was essentially that just being on the job wasn't enough, and that they didn't have to pay when it wasn't a work related accident.

Still, they each and everyone bought themselves a century or two in purgatory, just on the wild chance that they would be able to save the company some money.
 
You are in a difficult situation. Your employer is a Corporation, which is solely focused on maximizing profits. Corporations act exactly as psychopaths, no guilt, no shame, people, the world are disposable in the attainment of their goals. As lawsuits are expensive, they cannot endorse employees using lethal force at the work place. Employee’s killed by criminals are a law enforcement matter, the burden of which is carried by society, so in the cold logic of a financial statement, dead employees are cheaper than dead criminals.

In fact dead employees may be very profitable. You may not have heard of dead peasant policies, but a large number of corporations are taking life insurance policies on their employees, with the corporation as the beneficiary. http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/what...ant-insurance/

So you are between a rock and a hard place. We all need an income, but your employer may have a profit motive in making you dead.

You have to decide whether your loyalty to a Psychopath extends to the loss of your life.
Click to expand...

Sounds like class and wealth envy mixed with some unreal paranoia here...WOW......this ranks right up there with carrying while in the shower as somewhat over the top...........:rolleyes:
 
There's nothing incorrect about what he said. refer to walmart firing security guards who disarmed a shoplifter that had a gun drawn and aimed at another security guard. The thief might have killed all three. the company policy is to not resist, and run away if a gun comes out. one of the three was under the threat of imminent serious injury, and there was no chance of retreat.

Since they did not condone use of force, if the employees were killed violating policy, the corporation was innocent of wrongdoing. they had done their part. If the thief died, since the employees acted outside of policy, again, it was their fault, and the company had no liability.

just look at the black friday catastrophe in new york, if you want to see corporate psychopathology.
 
The insurance company that covers the home's employees refused his claims.
Click to expand...

As it should - It's not work related - must be covered by general liability insurance. Insurance is only a contract. Did you read it? No. Therefore, you are not qualified to state whether or not the insurance company is right or wrong. You simply lash out, demonize them and call them "evil" without knowing a thing about it. Pretty typical of many folks these days that want to demonize businesses without knowing a thing about what they are talking about. Its like listening to a 1st grader demonizing Calculus.
 
Not to be one to try to stay on target, but I fail to see how some insurance company not paying a tornado claim has anything do do with the issue of employees carrying guns at work and whether it is allowed or not.

You can cite all the terrible things you want to cite about what corporations have done that you don't like and I can probably cite just as many good things, but that doesn't have anything to do with the gun issue.

A buddy of mine worked for a pawn shop that did not allow employees to carry guns at work. The store was robbed and the employee lost his gun during the robbery. It seems he left his gun over the cash drawer under the counter and the robbers took it along with the cash. He asked the owner to reimburse him for his lost gun. The owner gave him a choice of options. He could either be remimbursed for his lost gun and be fired for having a gun at work or he could keep his job and eat the loss himself. He opted to eat the loss. Go figure. He continued working for the same owner for years and now has his own shop, bought from the owner.
 
nice shot said:
Bad idea. If he isnt an experienced knife fighter I doubt hes going to do much good with one in a fight. Same for improvised weapons. He might get some lucky cuts or hits in, but with no training or skill thats not as helpful as pointing a gun and ending the problem.
Click to expand...

As with anything, training is key. You are right, and wrong. Not everyone is as well trained with firearms than we would hope. Gun shots don't always stop a man from pulling a trigger in your direction. There are many, MANY cases where untrained men, and even women, have defended themselves with edged weapons. You don't need much experience to do a lot.
 
Only time I've used a knife on a living creature was before I had actually trained in Arnis.

Killed a 150lb boar with one thrust. (Lucky for me, the boar was distracted by a dog at the time.) Hog dropped immediately, and stopped breathing about 20 seconds later.

Knives may be just a bit more effective than some folks here seem to think.

Since then, I've actually trained some with knives. Get within reach, and pose a lethal threat, and if the knife is in hand, I won't bother going for the gun.

Given more heads up, I'd opt for the gun, but I wouldn't try to change weapons either way if already at point blank.
 
A sharp sword cuts for anyone, as the saying went. However, why does Wal-Mart even have security guards in the first place, if they aren't allowed to do anything?

Referring to corporations, on the other hand, this is what they teach in business school: the purpose of every employee of a corporation is to enrich the residual owners. For a corporation, that means the stockholders. But after a while you realize that isn't so. The stockholders do not necessarily get enriched. Because the upper management essentially runs everything for their own benefit, it is they who are enriched.

So all of you anti-socialists, think twice before you let the government privatize anything.
 
Seems to me that friends who've moved here from socialist countries (Netherlands, Russia) have had even worse things to say about the "just a cog" nature of existence where they came from.

But let's steer clear of politics, and avoid a lock, eh?
 
Walmart has Loss Prevention. It's not quite security.

Indeed a knife can do a lot, but in the same sense as a bullet it should be well placed. Though, I'd like to see someone hold up a gun with a knife in their armpit.
 
Interesting discussion. This past Wednesday, I was two steps from the door of a building when I saw the sign “Absolutely No Firearms Allowed in This Facility.” I had little choice about entering the building, as the location for receiving bids was on the fourth floor of same and I certainly wasn’t going to skip bidding on a half a million plus project. Walked back to the car, dumped the pistol; went in and won the bid. Our state law prohibits entry, with a concealed firearm, into a business or facility which post such notice. As a side note, if carrying, you must notify the occupant and ask permission to enter a private residence (this can be entertaining).

Our company policy manual states “Any act which may create a dangerous situation, such as carrying a weapon on … premises…” is a cause “for disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination.” Does a responsible, rational person “create a dangerous situation” by carrying a firearm? Debatable ‘til the cows come home.

Thankfully, our particular location is somewhat relaxed and no one seems to think twice about the 23” billy club leaning against my bookcase, the two foot long ¼” steel pointer beside my printer or the coworker’s pistol in their desk drawer. If I were to carry a pistol, without doing something dumb, I seriously doubt I would garner more than a reprimand if discovered. There are some benefits with my job.

When I go to military bases, power plants, refineries, industrial plants, and et cetera, I think it would be stupid to carry on site in violation of law or company policy. That’s a bad choice on a business level, for an engineer with a service company, and poor choice on a personal level.

It is interesting to observe the level of fear in some of the previous posts. The fear of being bushwhacked, assaulted, finding the burglar in the house stuff is standard forum fare, but the fear of losing a job caught my attention. I didn’t realize there was so much fear and worry connected to staying employed or being unemployed. Reading, believing and internalizing Psalms 37:23-25 helped me reduce that fear years ago.

If my employer had a clear “no firearms” policy, I would need to consider whether I would continue in their employment or find another job. Guess that puts me with the "house rules" bunch; if you don't like the house rules, find a different place to play.
 
Speaking only for myself and making no judgments of anyone else's choice.
my situation is that I work in a location where it is legal to carry concealed and I am licensed to do so. I work second shift from noon until 9pm. supervising a cleaning and maintenance crew. The buildings we service are in a higher crime area of a mid-size city. As the supervisor I'm required to be the last person to clock out, and walk to my truck alone every night. The company has no written policy against concealed carry. During my time with the company the issue has only come up once. My boss and I are on friendly terms and in a conversation regarding my former employment as a police officer I mentioned that I have CCW and do occasionally carry. He replied, "Not at work though, right?". I answered "no sir" and that was the end of it. I guess you could say that officially the company doesn't even have a verbal policy against it. Because of the conditions stated above and the fact that I am a single parent I do at times carry at work even though I'm well aware it is frowned upon by my employer. Given the choice of using deadly force to protect myself from death or grievous injury and bleeding out on a cold dark sidewalk because some dirtbag decided to mug or carjack me, all I can say is I hope he kissed his mother good-bye before leaving home. If I did lose my job over such a situation I would surely miss it, but not nearly as much as my son would miss his Dad. If that philosophy makes me a bad guy in the eyes of some of you so be it.
 
As it should - It's not work related - must be covered by general liability insurance. Insurance is only a contract. Did you read it? No. Therefore, you are not qualified to state whether or not the insurance company is right or wrong. You simply lash out, demonize them and call them "evil" without knowing a thing about it. Pretty typical of many folks these days that want to demonize businesses without knowing a thing about what they are talking about. Its like listening to a 1st grader demonizing Calculus.
Click to expand...


Bull.

he was on the job, on the clock, and at the moment the storm hit that place, he was doing his job, standing right over his charges as the house was ripped apart around him.

It may have been an act of god, but that doesn't keep it from being a work related incident.

If what you say is true, WHY DID AN INSURANCE COMPANY, IF IT WAS LEGALLY IN THE RIGHT, REVERSE THEIR POSITION WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE DECISION? They agreed to pay the claim, ONCE THEY READ THEIR OWN CONTRACT.

If they had even the slightest chance of winning a lawsuit, do you think that they would have agreed to pay this claim without a fight? Forget it. That company knew that a lawsuit would cost a fortune, and they would then be found in breach of contract, and liable for the full amount, plus a whole lot more.

You can bet your keister that the fireman who was struck by lightning and killed during that same night was treated under his workman's comp, before he succumbed to injuries.

That first grader remark was really uncalled for.

People who don't get this stuff never will until they wind up being the underdog.
 
If what you say is true, WHY DID AN INSURANCE COMPANY, IF IT WAS LEGALLY IN THE RIGHT, REVERSE THEIR POSITION WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE DECISION? They agreed to pay the claim, ONCE THEY READ THEIR OWN CONTRACT.
Click to expand...
You can only have a “Master/Slave” relationship with psychopaths.

Negotiation is viewed as a sign of weakness by psychopaths.

Corporate bullying can be profitable. What did the insurance company have to loose with bullying?: nothing. Insurance companies do this all the time, deny expensive claims and wait for the victim to spend time and money in legal fees. If only one in a hundred or one in a thousand cannot marshal the resources for the legal fight, the Corporation makes additional profit.

Why do Pizza delivery companies forbid their drivers from carrying? Pizza delivery is the fifth most hazardous job in the US. Criminals whack Pizza delivery men all the time. Here is one from the Oct 14. http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/n...ry-driver-shot-robbed-in-Beaumont-2218523.php Just Google the topic to see how many Pizza Delivery men are robbed. http://www.google.com/#ds=n&pq=pizz...osb&fp=7441974f566bb627&biw=1024&bih=616&bs=1
 
Yes, corporate bullying is what prevents unnecessary losses of profits. Pizza deliverymen packing heat is something that will never happen, will it? such a huge liability, having those armed couriers running loose on company business.

It's rather unfortunate, IMO, that businesses can't come up with some reasonable arrangement whereby they completely absolve themselves from liability if a worker is a licensed to carry, so that worker can exercise the right to safety.

It is reasonable for a business to want to shield itself from a million dollar lawsuit because a cart pusher packing a glock in his boxers caps a "child rapist" who was actually just a strung out dad trying to jam his mentally ill adolescent daughter into a car.

It is a no-win situation. If they allow it, or even give a wink and a nod, or if they fail to discharge people who do carry weapons, they open a chink in the legal armor.

Seriously, there is no way that common ground can be reached in this legal situation, where an employer can be held accountable for the actions of their employees.

Like I said in an earlier post, the only real answer if you can't find a company that allows concealed carry, is to violate, prepare to be fired, and hope for the best.

Does it ever bother any of you guys to walk into a gun store and see all of the employees openly packing on their belts?

One of the companies here allowed employees to carry. I nearly choked one day when I went in and saw a guy I knew in there with an 8 inch barreled revolver, probably a colt python hanging on his belt. The guy was a nut, I'd known him for years, and I would never have even gone to a range with him, much less worked next to him if he was armed. He was working there part time.

He was a student teacher, and I believe pretty strongly that he packed a large pistol in his brief case to class. This was back in 1977, so teaching wasn't a terribly hazardous job.
 
I had to come back in here and mention something

LAWS are not what people are talking about breaking here. It is not ILLEGAL to carry in most places where it's just against company policy.
One more time for the cheap seats: YOUR BOSS CAN'T THROW YOU IN JAIL FOR BREAKING HIS RULES.
Federal property? That's a lot different. We're talking about LAWS vice "rules". You guys are acting like sheep. Do you all really follow every single "RULE" your boss enacts at the workplace? Honesty here is key.
 
keep in mind that some states have some pretty broad legal restrictions to where you can carry. here, only professional LE officers are allowed to carry weapons into govt buildings, not employees, and they will be prosecuted as this is specifically covered by law. I believe that a ban on carrying into places where alcohol was served was tried here but failed.
 
brickeyee wrote:

Have you ever had a job?

They can enforce it if their is not a state law preventing them.

"We need to search your car."

Answer no and you can then be fired.

Answer yes and have them find something prohibited and you can then be fired.

Is that enforceable enough?
Click to expand...



I can field that situation!

Employer: "We need to search your car."

Employee: OK, but you need to get a warrant and do it legally.

Employer: Your fired!

Employee: OK, Put it in writting that you fired me because you refused to do a legal search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top