• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Group Health

D

Derka

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
58
Location
Sundance, Wyoming, USA
imported post

Consumers: Any Group Health Cooperative consumer who is found to have a firearm or dangerous weapon on their person or in their control shall remove the weapon upon request of Group Health Cooperative personnel.

Non-Emergency Consumers: Any consumer found in possession of any firearm or other dangerous weapon as defined above will be informed of the policy and required to remove the weapon prior to obtaining any services. Group Health Cooperative Security, or staff, will notify local law enforcement authorities if the consumer fails to comply with the request to remove a firearm or dangerous weapon. Consumers refusing to remove weapons after notice may be subject to termination from coverage as provided under GHC Policy A-03-001(5).

Emergency Consumers: Group Health Cooperative Security Officers shall be notified when any consumer seeking emergency treatment is found in possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon. Security is responsible for notifying local law enforcement authorities to obtain necessary assistance.
Click to expand...
Visitors as opposed to consumers. Visitors are here on private business or for solicitation. A visitor with a gun is assumed hostile for some reason. Not sure why. I've contacted our head of security for clarification on a few things, particularly signage. Hope this makes sense.
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Derka,

Thanks for posting the GH policy.

Everyone should take care to note that there isn't the slightest hint of a suggestion of a firearm ban in RCW 49.19, much less a requirement. What is required is to (a) have a "Workplace Violence [protection and prevention] Plan", (b) carry out "Violence prevention training", and (c) keep records of workplace violence incidents.

I don't see anything in the entire chapter that would prevent GH from having a policy of encouraging their employees and customers to carry at their facilities, of paying a bonus to employees who obtain a CPL, etc... [OK, I can dream, can't I???]
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

Any employee concerned about personal safety may request an escort (e.g. to a parking lot off premises) or other appropriate intervention by security personnel at sites where available.
Click to expand...

Some more nits to pick:

  1. Is the escort armed, or are they just sacrificial lambs?
  2. Doesn't the last clause really say they don't have to provide for anyone's safety, anywhere, unless they feel like it?
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

All of our guards are given access to a resource website that they should know how to use. Unfortunately we have such a high turnover rate that many of our guards are not more than half trained by the time they leave and are replaced by another member of the sheeple herd. Problem with being lowest bidder contractor I suppose.
Click to expand...
I sure don't envy you that aspect of your job!
 
D

Derka

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
58
Location
Sundance, Wyoming, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
I don't see anything in the entire chapter that would prevent GH from having a policy of encouraging their employees and customers to carry at their facilities, of paying a bonus to employees who obtain a CPL, etc... [OK, I can dream, can't I???]
Click to expand...
Hey man, your dream is my dream. I know I'm not the only one here who is not happy with a no weapons policy either. I find it interesting however, that the policy makes an exception for security to carry. Group Health has not once in its existence hired armed security. I've even had to correct a few employees who thought that we were armed. People feel safer knowing that there are guns protecting them and yet, the company is unwilling to provide that, or even allow it.
 
D

Derka

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
58
Location
Sundance, Wyoming, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
Any employee concerned about personal safety may request an escort (e.g. to a parking lot off premises) or other appropriate intervention by security personnel at sites where available.
Click to expand...

Some more nits to pick:

  1. Is the escort armed, or are they just sacrificial lambs?

  2. Doesn't the last clause really say they don't have to provide for anyone's safety, anywhere, unless they feel like it?
Click to expand...
LOL. Just sacrificial lambs. Not all of our 50 or so sites have onsite personnel, and that's where "where available" comes in. We had our guards at Capitol Hill running so many escorts after a shooting, a few months back, across the street that the guards started to get nerveous about walking outside. Normally it's a rare occurance to provide escorts. We provide escorts for consumers and visitors as well.
 
Bill Starks

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

kparker wrote:
M1Gunr,
I am by no means a lawyer, nor an expert on WA firearms law like Dave Workman, but I'm a bit dubious about their claim that there's an RCW that requires GH to have a no-firearms policy.
Click to expand...
RCW 49.19.050 Noncompliance--Penalties. Failure of a health care setting to comply with this chapter shall subject the setting to citation under chapter 49.17 RCW. [1999 c 377 § 6.]

Based on an analysis of workers' compensation claims, the department of labor and industries reports that health care employees face the highest rate of workplace violence in Washington state.
While the RCW does't deal directly with firearms, it does require them to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment for patients, visitors, and health care employees. Since they ban weapons, I'm sure they get a break on their insurance payment.

As you read the policy you'll see they make it quite clear they don't want any sort of weapon on the property. I was especially caught off guard by the section about terminating my enrollment.
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

While the RCW does't deal directly with firearms, it does require them to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment ...
Click to expand...
Well, I think you and I might both agree that encouraging their employees to (a) obtain their CPL's, (b) obtain advanced handgun training (as provided by FAS, Insight, and others) and then (c) CC'ing at work would do far more to enhance the safety of everyone onsite. Letting CPL-holding non-emergency patients and other visitors carry would do likewise, given the fact that CPL holders have been criminal-background-checked and offend at a lower rate than the general population. Allowing open carry would be a bit more of a stretch for them (no state "seal of approval" for the GH bureaucracy to point to) but still, given the fact that Felon In Possession is such a serious matter, it's a safe bet that someone OC'ing with a reasonable holster and a non-threatening attitude is not such a felon.
 
D

Derka

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
58
Location
Sundance, Wyoming, USA
imported post

As you read the policy you'll see they make it quite clear they don't want any sort of weapon on the property. I was especially caught off guard by the section about terminating my enrollment.
Click to expand...
I found this to be a little over the top as well. Give me another year or so and I hope to have some real influenceon the policy making people. I'm in the running for a management position which would put me in charge of training and personnel at 12 of our sites as well as some say as far as policy.
 
R

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Somewhat off topic (but not totally):

My wife recently had surgery at Northwest Hospital. Because if this and herpost surgery followups, wenow routinely make visits to the NW Hospital Campus.

One thing I have noticed during our manyvisitsis that the Hospital itself (PatientRooms) is posted as a Gun-Free Zone, however none of theattached clinics, Emergency Room, or Surgery Centeris posted.

In fact, the Gun Free zone signs are posted in the doorsfrom the ER to the Hospital, so apparently this is intentional.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

What the hell is a "Dangerous Weapon"? The is no such thing. I can kill you with a baseball bat, but it surely doesn't make it a dangerous weapon. There are however dangerous people who might use a weapon. But never in the history of man has a weapon or any other tool ever hurt or killed someone all by itself. Only with the help of a person can any tool or weapon be dangerous. It is obvious that this crap was written by someone with out a clueabout weapons, self defense or the defense of others. Rules written by idiots and the uninformed just get people hurt or killed. Stupid is as stupid does and this regulation is stupid from start to finish and protects no one.
 
Bill Starks

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
Stupid is as stupid does and this regulation is stupid from start to finish and protects no one.
Click to expand...
Momma always said a Gun Free Zone was like a box of chocolates, they make you feel real good till someone gets shot in the ass.
 
just_a_car

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

M1Gunr wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
Stupid is as stupid does and this regulation is stupid from start to finish and protects no one.
Click to expand...
Momma always said a Gun Free Zone was like a box of chocolates, they make you feel real good till someone gets shot in the ass.
Click to expand...
ROFLMFAO!!!

I swear I'll have to use that in the next week, just cuz.
 
BobCav

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
What the hell is a "Dangerous Weapon"? The is no such thing. I can kill you with a baseball bat, but it surely doesn't make it a dangerous weapon. There are however dangerous people who might use a weapon. But never in the history of man has a weapon or any other tool ever hurt or killed someone all by itself. Only with the help of a person can any tool or weapon be dangerous. It is obvious that this crap was written by someone with out a clueabout weapons, self defense or the defense of others. Rules written by idiots and the uninformed just get people hurt or killed. Stupid is as stupid does and this regulation is stupid from start to finish and protects no one.
Click to expand...

LMAO...."Dangerous Weapon" is like "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". Shouldn't ALL punishment be cruel and unusual as opposed to kind and commonplace? Oops, I just described our justice/penal system!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top