Company Firearm's Policy

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.

Click to expand...

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]

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...".

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.

Click to expand...

How in the world do they expect to enforce a policy of requiring people to rat out their fellow employees?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

imported post

+1 to thebastidge

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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" :banghead:. 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.

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 :uhoh:.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

HankT wrote

T-RaV wrote:

I guess it comes down to which is more important, following the rules or following your rules.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

The most obvious one is: "work to change the rules."

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.

Click to expand...

...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.