I'm generally a big fan of John Lott, but his claim that there are OSHA regs that force employers to prohibit employees from carrying lawfully-owned and permitted concealed weapons is simply untrue.
He is referring to the "general duty clause", which is an OSHA requirement that:
(taken from a 1992 OSHA letter of interpretation. )In a workplace where the risk of violence and serious personal injury are significant enough to be "recognized hazards," the general duty clause [specified by Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)] would require the employer to take feasible steps to minimize those risks. Failure of an employer to implement feasible means of abatement of these hazards could result in the finding of an OSH Act violation.
OSHA has issued "guidance" regarding workplace violence, but it does not have the authority to require employers to prohibit firearms in the workplace.
This requires employers to do what they can to provide a safe working environment for employees when a situation exists that might be more dangerous than normal--providing security guards, installing metal detectors or other security devices, etc. This is why banks and convenience stores in gang-ridden neighborhoods have their cashiers encased in bulletproof lexan. If they didn't, and they got hurt or killed by a thug, they could VERY WELL be cited for violating OSHA standards for workplace safety...
You need to remember, most OSHA regs have NOTHING to do with actual "employee safety". They have to do with giving employers a set of guidelines to keep them from being sued by employees (or employee's survivors) if they are hurt on the job. OSHA is essentially a HUGE bureaucracy set up to provide CYA for business owners. And THAT is the sad, sick truth of OSHA.
If OSHA were genuinely involved in workplace safety and employee safety, there would still be 29 more miners still working, breathing, and hugging their families at the end of their shifts in Montcoal, WV...
Mr. Lott usually doesn't resort to such hyperbole. HE usually sticks to the facts, and actually cites statutes, laws, and specific regulations directly.
I wonder why he is framing his discussion on this incident in such a way this time?