Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: Company Firearm's Policy

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jamfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greater Seattle Area
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    Not entirely sure what to make of our company "Concealed Weapons" policy:

    Posession, use or sale of weapons, firearms or explosives on work premises, while operating company machinery, equipment or vehicles for work-related purposes or while engaged in company business off premises is forbidden except where expressly authorized by the company and permitted by state and local laws. This policy applies to all employees, including but no limited to, those who have a valid permit to carry a firearm.

    Employees who are aware of violations or threats of violations of this policy are required to report such violations or threats of violations to the office manager immediately.

    Violations of this policy will result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
    Are they saying those with valid permits ARE allowed? That's how I'm reading it right now. If so, this is great; the previous policy simply stated 'no firearms allowed'.

    Thanks in advance for your feedback.

    [Gads, my grammar in the Subject is horrible]
    Support these forums, please donate if you are able to OpenCarry.Org!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    The way I read it, this statement -- "This policy applies to all employees, including but not limited to, those who have a valid permit to carry a firearm" -- says it all. The no firearms policy applies to all employees "including who have a valid permit...".

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    Employees who are aware of violations or threats of violations of this policy are required to report such violations or threats of violations to the office manager immediately.
    How in the world do they expect to enforce a policy of requiring people to rat out their fellow employees?

  4. #4
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Posession, use or sale of weapons, firearms or explosives on work premises, while operating company machinery, equipment or vehicles for work-related purposes or while engaged in company business off premises is forbidden except where expressly authorized by the company and permitted by state and local laws. This policy applies to all employees, including but no limited to, those who have a valid permit to carry a firearm.

    Employees who are aware of violations or threats of violations of this policy are required to report such violations or threats of violations to the office manager immediately.

    Violations of this policy will result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.

    Note: I'm not a lawyer, nor have any legal experience.

    I will direct your attention to the wording of the phrase that I've italicized. The word "and" that I've bolded and underlined, means that you have to have your company authorize your carry on the premesis or when functioning as a representative of the company elsewhere. The fact that they've specifically mentioned concealed carry license-holders means that they're covering that right there to make sure that there's no ambiguity as to whether you need to ask; you do. Once you have permission from the "company" (not sure if that means your supervisor or from HR), then you're good, under policy, to carry.

    I had to do the same thing from my employee handbook. It said that knives weren't allowed unless necessary for work and approved by my supervisor. So, I talked to my supervisor, who had been a friend of mine before I started working there, about the pocketknife I carry and she said it was fine and I had covered my ass. Simple as that.

    I only hope your experience with getting this resolved is as smooth.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    My company policy is basically the same, except there's no "without company permission" clause. I just can't carry. It really agrivates me that corporations have "rights" and that their rights supercede mine. The way I see it, they choose to operate a business in my country. That means they have to deal with my country's laws and rights. If they don't want to have firearms on company property, they should open an office in Great Brittain.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    +1 on just_a_car's comment

    The word AND makes it crystal clear.

    The company must specifically authorize your "posession, use or sale" AND it must be legal.

    So without "permission" your SOL


  7. #7
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    expvideo: "really agrivates me that corporations have "rights" and that their rights supercede mine."

    Only on their property and their time. They don't owe you a job any more than you owe it to them to not carry on the job.

    "If they don't want to have firearms on company property, they should open an office in Great Brittain."

    Do you see the double standard you're employing here? If it's a condition of employment that you don't care for- try to convince them to change it orfind another job. If it's one you can live with, then live with it. Either way, your rights were not violated, merely your desires thwarted.

    On the practical level, you might point out that their policy makes them liable for your safety, and that should they fail in providing that safety on the jobsite as well as to and from work, and even in any travel you must do incidental to work where you are unarmed because of their policy, that they would be exposed to a rather large lawsuit from you and /or your family.
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    +1 to thebastidge

    expvideo, would you like it if you had no control over others behaviour on YOUR property?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    +1+ Bastaige and PaPatriot
    Points I had to think of after reading my company's policy. There is nothing wrong with seeking permission.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    ...
    On the practical level, you might point out that their policy makes them liable for your safety, and that should they fail in providing that safety on the jobsite as well as to and from work, and even in any travel you must do incidental to work where you are unarmed because of their policy, that they would be exposed to a rather large lawsuit from you and /or your family.
    I recall someone did a very elegant treatment of this idea once, even came up with a letter stating it in legaleze, which they sent to their company's legal department. The result was that the policy was revised back to "Don't ask ..." I kick myself for not keeping a copy. Anyone else heard of this?

  11. #11
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    It doesn’t seem a year can go by without there being some news article about someone coming in to work and blowing away as many people as they can. "Going Postal" is such a common occurrence that you can find the saying on t-shirts at the mall.

    I will forever refuse to allow myself to become a victim because some duffis (duffus?) in upper management thought it would be "PC" to have a "No Firearms" policy put in place for my "safety" . Therefore, anyplace I work that does not have well equipped security actively patrolling the premises, I WILL be armed. If for some reason I'm found out and get fired, so be it. I can always find another job.

    That being said, I am also a realist (or at least try to be) and understand that sometimes it is simply impossible to bring a firearm to work. For example, I've had to work support for the IRS and they have metal detectors and X-Ray machines at the entrance of the building. Of course trying to bring a firearm with me wouldn't be the best idea so I leave it in the car, (which leaves me walking through Downtown Seattle unarmed :X).

    I guess it comes down to which is more important, following the rules or following your rules.
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    This is a perennial debate. Frankly I usually come down on the side of breaking rules which are ill considered if it really matters. Somebody will flame me for this, but it is what I do. Hell, I've even made a few rules which were good at first .

    Anyway, I'm more interested in devising a strategy to get the rules changed. Associating a tangible cost with a foolish policy seems like a place to start.

    Please let's not go over the old ground again, it always comes down to weigh the risks for yourself and make a choice.

    To that end, does anyone have any hard data on prevelance of firings due to weapons policy violations vs. other causes? We are trying to figure out
    (chance of getting caught and fired)(cost of getting fired) <> (chance of getting killed because of policy)(cost of demise). I'm no insurance wonk but I bet there is a formula for such calculations. Is there another way to make a dispassionate, "tactical", decision about this?

    Scratching my head ...

    C.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    CPerdue wrote:
    This is a perennial debate. Frankly I usually come down on the side of breaking rules which are ill considered if it really matters.
    And you have every right to do that. Just so as long as you also are willing to face the consequences of breaking those rules.

    The only problem I see is those who choose to break rules, then whine, moan, complain when the consequences of breaking those rules come to pass.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Yep. And you have to think a couple moves ahead to understand the consequences. Got bail money?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    xpun8 wrote:
    +1+ Bastaige and PaPatriot
    Points I had to think of after reading my company's policy. There is nothing wrong with seeking permission.
    I alway have operated under the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than get permission before hand" principle. Of course, I've been retired for over 4 years now and the wife has her own permitso I'm good to go.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    true.
    And this being an "at will" state, asking may be enough for them to decide to replace you.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    expvideo: "really agrivates me that corporations have "rights" and that their rights supercede mine."

    Only on their property and their time. They don't owe you a job any more than you owe it to them to not carry on the job.

    "If they don't want to have firearms on company property, they should open an office in Great Brittain."

    Do you see the double standard you're employing here? If it's a condition of employment that you don't care for- try to convince them to change it orfind another job. If it's one you can live with, then live with it. Either way, your rights were not violated, merely your desires thwarted.

    On the practical level, you might point out that their policy makes them liable for your safety, and that should they fail in providing that safety on the jobsite as well as to and from work, and even in any travel you must do incidental to work where you are unarmed because of their policy, that they would be exposed to a rather large lawsuit from you and /or your family.
    I was just voicing my frustration. I know about the whole "at will employment" deal. I just think it's a load of crap, and it gives the corporation rights over the individual. Sure it's their property (actually it's not, they rent it), but I think that's one of the things that's wrong with this country. I don't want to argue about this, I'm just voicing my frustration.

  18. #18
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote
    T-RaV wrote:
    I guess it comes down to which is more important, following the rules or following your rules.
    No, it doesn't come down to only these two. That's a constraint that you are imposing on the situation. Of course, using this constraint does make the decision much simpler.
    Ok, I'll bite...

    What other options did you have in mind HankT?

    It’s been mentioned that the rules might possibly be changed, but that's an IF and there would still be lag while waiting for the results.

    So please, enlighten me
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  19. #19
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    T-RaV wrote:
    HankT wrote
    T-RaV wrote:
    I guess it comes down to which is more important, following the rules or following your rules.
    No, it doesn't come down to only these two. That's a constraint that you are imposing on the situation. Of course, using this constraint does make the decision much simpler.
    Ok, I'll bite...

    What other options did you have in mind HankT?

    It’s been mentioned that the rules might possibly be changed, but that's an IF and there would still be lag while waiting for the results.

    So please, enlighten me
    The most obvious one is: "work to change the rules."

    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  20. #20
    Regular Member Jamfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Greater Seattle Area
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    xpun8 wrote:
    +1+ Bastaige and PaPatriot
    Points I had to think of after reading my company's policy. There is nothing wrong with seeking permission.
    ...which is exactly what I have done. Actually, I've raised the issue with our HR Director (who said matter-of-factly he/she is not anti-gun). Said Director will insert the issue into the next executive meeting agenda.

    The concern is, as our Director put it, how this meshes with our "corporate culture" (whatever that means). I explained how I've been carrying for years, and how frustrating it is that I can legally carry from home, in my car, on the bus, in Seattle, but then can't at work. I didn't bring up the, "are you promising responsibility for my safety?" angle.

    While it's fully within their rights to do so, I'm sadly predicting this policy will stand. Our Director said I'm the only one who has ever questioned this policy. I'm just hoping this whole process won't reflect on me negatively and I won't be regarded with suspicion. I really like my job and the company in general. Our COO (who is actually the founder of our company) and I have a pretty decent relationship; hopefully that will leave things on a positive note whether they go one way or the other.
    Support these forums, please donate if you are able to OpenCarry.Org!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    Jamfish wrote:
    xpun8 wrote:
    +1+ Bastaige and PaPatriot
    Points I had to think of after reading my company's policy. There is nothing wrong with seeking permission.
    ...which is exactly what I have done. Actually, I've raised the issue with our HR Director (who said matter-of-factly he/she is not anti-gun). Said Director will insert the issue into the next executive meeting agenda.

    The concern is, as our Director put it, how this meshes with our "corporate culture" (whatever that means). I explained how I've been carrying for years, and how frustrating it is that I can legally carry from home, in my car, on the bus, in Seattle, but then can't at work. I didn't bring up the, "are you promising responsibility for my safety?" angle.

    While it's fully within their rights to do so, I'm sadly predicting this policy will stand. Our Director said I'm the only one who has ever questioned this policy. I'm just hoping this whole process won't reflect on me negatively and I won't be regarded with suspicion. I really like my job and the company in general. Our COO (who is actually the founder of our company) and I have a pretty decent relationship; hopefully that will leave things on a positive note whether they go one way or the other.
    Good luck on that!! And I sure hope you don't get labeled as a "gun nut". I wish I could do the same, but we are a part of a Canadian company. I don't think I have a snoballs chance and would probably be fired for even thinking of looking at a gun.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    I think or maybe just wonder why they would put the "ask for permission" statement in there. After I thought about it the only thing that I could think of was it's there for one of two reasons:

    1) If some "gun nut" is actually "ballsy" enough (read stupid) to actually ask he deserves to be let go.

    2) We don't want just any old schmoe running around with a gun, when you request permission they will ask on what grounds and qualifications they should let you carry?

    I asked why I had to ask permission to carry, everyone at work knows I'm an enthusiast, I didn't expect to get fired. My boss, whom I've known for 10 years said he'd find out. He came back with something along the lines of #2, I'm not sure what I expected.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    I don't recall off hand, but I believe one state just made it "ok" for employees to keep the guns in their car, corporations can not do anything for leaving it in your car.

    We, folks living in WA, could seek to get something similar introduced.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    xpun8 wrote:
    I don't recall off hand, but I believe one state just made it "ok" for employees to keep the guns in their car, corporations can not do anything for leaving it in your car.

    We, folks living in WA, could seek to get something similar introduced.
    I can't even leave it in my car per my company policy. I have brought the issue up with HR, and it's in the process of being researched by our legal department. I imagine it will be in that "process" indeffinately.

    For the time being, I park in another company's parking lot and walk about 3-400 yards to work everyday (rain or shine). That way I can have my gun (sort of) and obey the company policy at the same time.

    I've always wanted to ask my (obviously anti) HR manager this:
    "What if one day somebody over there in recievables just snaps. They start shooting up that whole section of cubicles, killing anybody they see. Now everyone that hasn't been shot has run away, and the killer is walking office to office down this hallway checking the doors. When he gets to your door, would you rather I 'left my gun at home', as you suggested, or that I stopped him?"

    But I'm supposed to feel safe because of the elderly, frail Wakenhut Security guard in the lobby. He's armed with a pen and a telephone, and he's there to fight for my safety!



    Seriously though, when I first brought up this issue to my HR manager, she said"oh I'm glad you asked. A couple years ago a customer got really mad and came down to the office and shot one of the phone reps!" She was answering why I can't have a gun to protect myselfon company property, when anyone else that isn't employed there can. Her story seemed to justify my want to protect myself, but in her twisted sense of reasoning, it was a great example of why employees should be unarmed. I'll repeat that, because it bears repeating. She said that because a non-employee came to the company property and shot someone, employees should feel safer being unarmed.

    I hate my job sometimes. I used to love it, but I can't stand these rediculous policies.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    At least you guys have policies and not laws preventing you from carrying at work. Hell if I do it I am going to jail.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •