[BluesBear]

My best friend is working at a Sam's Club, which is a division of Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart & Sam's Club corporate policy is that they have no problem with persons who posess valid carry permits carrying weapons while shopping there. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE!

All Wal-Mart & Sam's Club employees are expresely forbidden to possess in any manner a firearm on Company Property. Company Property includes the parking lot of ANY Wal-Mart or Sam's Club NOT just the one where you work.

I can understand that they feel you shouldn't carry a weapon while you are on the clock, but if any employee, is on any Company Property, even on a day off shopping as a regular customer is subject to IMMEDIATE termination if found with any firearm on company property.

My friend was told that this meant even a weapon in the trunk of a personal car in the parking lot is a violation of company policy.

Why should a loyal employee, who has been deemed fit, by the local constabulary, to carry a conceaked firearm be discriminated against?

Technically, if any employee were to buy one of the special edition Sam Walton Remington 870 shotguns from Wal-Mart, they would be subject to termination the moment they took possession of it.

My friend was told, by the Personel Supervisor that there were NO exceptions to this policy.

I hope the bad guys never figure out just how much cash the average Wal-Mart or Sam's Club has on hand at any given time. (It's a helluva lot, BTW)
Or that all of the women leaving at closing time and walking all the way to back parcking lot (employees are also forbidden from parking close to the entrance) are unarmed.

Does anyone else but me find this Stinkin' Thinkin' ?

[Zundfolge]

that first "C" in "CCW" stands for Concealed ;)

As for me, I figure if I'm working for WalMart that my life is much more important then that walmart job.

At the least I'd keep my piece locked in my car.



So I wonder if a WalMart employee is attacked between the building and their car and they have a valid CCW but are not carrying as per policy, I wonder if they can (will) sue?

[DigMe]

One time I was a at a Wal-Mart far from my current location and I was buying some ammo. When the guy that was helping me squatted down to get it I could see his holster holding what appeared to be some kind of subcompact pistol peeking out from under his untucked t-shirt. So much for company policy and more power to him.

brad cook

[jsalcedo]

Just about every large corporation has the same policy.

It's almost like 1000 evil socialist monkeys with 1000 cyrillic typewriters were given 30 minutes to write the definitive company policy handbook.

Seriously. It is probably an IS0 9000 type, insurance premium thing.

It sucks, but its the way they all are.

I would say go ahead and carry and keep it concealed and if confronted
deny it, refuse to be searched and sue.

[seeker_two]

What they don't know won't hurt you...

[Carlos Cabeza]

Its a liability thing. I'm not betting my life on a megalomart job.
In some boardroom somewhere, there are fraidy cats that run the company, and they sit around with coffee and donuts dreaming up the different scenarios that make up company policy.

[Guntalk]

www.smartcarry.com

Carry in a Smart Carry rig, never tell a soul, and no one will ever know.

If you have to pull the gun, getting fired is the least of your concerns.

Oh, if you order a Smart Carry, tell Charlie I sent you there. He'll give you a discount.

No, I don't get a commission. I just think it's a cool product.

[Sunray]

"...a violation of company policy..." Sounds like a violation of constitutional rights and therefore illegal to me. Somebody who works there should file a human rights complaint. Or call the NRA and ask if anything can be done. Mind you, you don't get much of a lawyer while working at minimum wage.

[willyjixx]

buy the sam walton shotgun an make the manager walk about a 1/2 mile away from the store property to put it in the car just to make sure you are following the rules:D

[Zak Smith]

Sunray,
"...a violation of company policy..." Sounds like a violation of constitutional rights and therefore illegal to me.

No. It's a matter of private property and private contracts. You have no right to a job at Wal*Mart and they can set whatever policy they want with regard to what you can do "at work."

-z

[aikidoka-mks]

I have been thinking about this issue for a bit. If someone works in a state that allows ccw and they have a license but are prevented from carrying at work because of company policy bs - can they or their family sue for wrongful death or injury should something happen while they were disarmed by the coporate bs? With all the ridiculous lawsuits out there that actually get huge awards from jurys I would think this would be a sure thing. Then again I am not a lawyer.

Mark

[Moparmike]

That makes me want to become so damned hireable to Wallyworld (being 40 miles from corprate HQ and attending the college they bought...) that they couldnt stand the thought of not having me work for them. Then asking them what their policy is on CCW on-site, and then withdrawing my application when they told me I couldnt. It would make my day.:D

[Standing Wolf]

I can understand that they feel you shouldn't carry a weapon while you are on the clock...

I can't. I'm a law-abiding American citizen with a concealed firearms license. I wouldn't give up the right to vote for a job, nor would I give up my Second Amendment civil rights.

That said™, I'd have an extremely hard time facing the thought of going to work for a company that sells so much communist Chinese junk.

[Redlg155]

Walmart isn't the only one to adopt such a policy. In addition to my State Corrections job I also work at Sears on a part time basis. Out of curiosity I checked the weapons policy the other day and yep, No weapons period, whether valid concealed weapons permit holder or otherwise. This also extended to when you were not on duty and just visiting the store.

And as with Walmart, on anywhere that was considered Sears "property", including the parking lot.

Anyone who knows me pretty much knows what I think about those policies and where they can stick them.

Good Shooting
Red

[TonyB]

My full time job is at a state run mental hospital.....so no carrying.The security office has a safe ,and I've used it on several occasions to store my gun while at work.These guys are almost all shooters and have no problem w/ it.Although somehow I think administration would.Don't ask don't tell.....
My part time job is at a retail store....this post got me thinking so I checked out the handbook for employees........No carrying on store property......again ..concealed means concealed IMO.......dont ask,dont tell..
I don't carry at the hosp. for many reasons not just because they say I can't....(if a patient got a hold of it :what: )
I DO carry at my part time job,and will continue to.....I like all the people I work w/ at the store and being a Pharmacy it could be robbed.....So any time out outside of the state run hospital....I'm carrying.......Like some said above,if you need to pull your gun and use it,your job is the least of your worries.....:cool:

[garrettwc]

Standing Wolf said:
I wouldn't give up the right to vote for a job, nor would I give up my Second Amendment civil rights.

At the company I work for we had a meeting all supervisors were required to attend. One of the specifics was that you could not terminate an employee for exercising their constitutional rights. The right to vote was given as an example.

I asked the company attorney who was giving the lecture how they could reconcile that statement with the infringement of my 2A rights. Ours is a "weapons free" workplace complete with signs, and metal detectors.

After peeling the legal beagle off the ceiling, I got to hear an anti-gun tirade that would have made Sarah Brady proud.

The legal loophole is that employment is "at will". They technically don't infringe on your rights, just tell you to go elsewhere if you wish to exercise them.

[Zak Smith]

First of all, I agree that an employer that disarms you is assuming liabilty for your safety. And I agree that it sucks to work for a company that disarms you, but...

I believe in property rights as basically the primary rights, as in, "I have a right to my life and the fruits of my labor." Everything else including the right to self-defense follows from that (and the NAP).

I don't have a right to a job. I don't have a right to do anything I please in your home - or in your store. The property rights of an employer trump my right to do anything I please while I'm on the job or at work.

-z

[aikidoka-mks]

Ok - Here I go not being a lawyer and all - but "at will" as the legal loophole? Does that mean they can segrate the bathrooms and water fountains because you can go elsewhere to exercise your rights?

Interesting how they actually called a meeting to talk about constitutional rights and then proceed to show how they really dont care about at least one.

Also, an employer can get sued for a "harassing environment" that does not risk one's safety or life - and lose. But we have no legal recourse when they deny us the ability to exercise a consitutional right recognized by the state? Seems to me that is a much more serious harassing environment. Am I way off here or is the world just that messed up?

Mark

[Zak Smith]

aikidoka-mks,

You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can go around swearing at customers and yelling, "My job sucks - I hate you!" while at work, well, at least without being fired shortly thereafter.

In other words, there is behavior that is not restricted by government (the free speech) but is governed by a voluntary agreement with your employer.


-z

[aikidoka-mks]

Zak,

The specific example you give is something I would agree with. But havent there been plenty of excesses because apparently not being offended has become a constitutional right? I was thinking along those lines.

Its just very frustrating that consitutional rights and made up rights are considered so important except for the right to keep and bear arms. Lawsuits everywhere but nothing for us though the facts are on our side.

Mark

[Zak Smith]

akidoka-mks,

There's a big difference the government restricting your behavior and your behavior being restricted by a private contract you enter into voluntarily.

In the former case (government), you will be charged with a crime and they will initiate force against you to make you comply.

In the latter case (private contract), your liability is limited by the "force" of the contract and its legality-- they can't arrest you and throw you in jail (ie, initiate force), however you may be liable for some damages in a civil court, e.g. breach of contract.

We have these "made up" rights at work like the right to not be offended, etc, because corporations have decided it's better to have a work environment that has certain attributes. Of course, there is also a bunch of law of on dubious moral ground concerning what is legal at work backing up those policies (e.g. harassment, discrimination)-- although I am personally against both of those behaviors, it should be up to the business owner. The market will sort of such problems. To say otherwise is to say that the government basically owns part of all businesses.

I've worked for a large corporation for about 5 years now. I stay because the people in my R&D lab are good and the work is still fun. Large corporations do not care about you or me or what's "right" -- they care about money and a big part of that is limiting their liability. The lawyers and accountants have decided that it's more expensive to allow employees to CCW than to write a company "violence policy" that prohibits them, and post signs at the entrance saying "No Weapons."

I don't like that that's how it is, but I think that last paragraph is an accurate description of the situation.

-z

[aikidoka-mks]

Zak,

I should have thought about it longer before I started typing or I would have recognized the difference between law and workplace rules. I guess I get pretty irritated with these no ccw policies. That and having a meeting about constitutional rights - but oh not that one. arrgh

how about this wording though:

No unauthorized firearms alllowed on xyz corporate property.

could a slick lawyer argue that ccw is authorized by the state and therefore allowed on the property since unauthorized by who is not defined? Of course if that worked it would only work once because the company lawyers would then say no firearms allowed on xyz corporate property that are not authorized by xyz corporation.

It is unfortunate but I agree with your last paragraph concerning company lawyers.

Mark

[garrettwc]

I should have thought about it longer before I started typing or I would have recognized the difference between law and workplace rules. I guess I get pretty irritated with these no ccw policies. That and having a meeting about constitutional rights - but oh not that one.

aikidoka - sorry I didn't respond to you quicker on this. I tried responding from work earlier to day but the recent High Road server glitches ate my post before it processed.

The meeting wasn't about constitutional law, it was about managing employees and the law in general. It covered harassment, discrimination, fairness, etc. Constitutional rights were only a small portion of the lecture.

I asked the same question of the company lawyer, why one right and not that one? After peeling the legal beagle off the ceiling, I was witness to a Brady bunch style tirade that would have made Schumer and Feinstein proud.

Zak, pretty much covered the rest of what I was going to say about employment contracts vs. law.

The CCW law works against me in the scenario you suggested. In order to get it passed they compromised on where the "no guns" areas are. Instead of specific areas named in the statute, it basically says anyplace that wants to hang up a "No weapons" sign with specific wording and such.

[aikidoka-mks]

hmm - no signs at a my um - friends workplace ;-)

what about they can terminate you for ccw on their property while you are off the clock and shopping on your own time?

Mark

[garrettwc]

what about they can terminate you for ccw on their property while you are off the clock and shopping on your own time?

In the case of my employer, it is located in KY and CCw where sign is posted is a crime regardless of status so they would have you there.

In the specific scenario we have been discussing with Walmart I think a really good lawyer (read expensive) could beat it or at least settle it out. I think the only area where employers can regulate your off the clock behavior is if it leads to on the clock problems such as tardiness, failing a drug test, etc.

Walmart would have to prove that you were armed while on the clock, i.e. you clocked out and started shopping without leaving the building, therefore you were armed while on the clock and violating policy.

Another possibility would be when you present yourself as a Walmart employee on the property. For example, you are out shopping with the family off the clock. You see someone in the area you work who needs help but there is not an associate around. You say "Hello, I'm Joe. I'm off today but this is my department can I help you?" You just became legally a rep of the company and subject to their policies.

It's just like stopping off after work for a beer then getting in a wreck with the company truck. You are off the clock, but in control of company property so therefore are under their rules.

[Redlg155]

what about they can terminate you for ccw on their property while you are off the clock and shopping on your own time?

Most folks have signed a statement agreeing that they will abide by the policies of the company under the conditions of employment. That is where they have you by the short hairs.


Good Shooting
Red

[BluesBear]

Ahhh Garrettwc, WalMart also has a strict policy against working without being punched in. If you are either off the clock or in the store on your day off you are, by policy, NOT to do anything that could be construed as "working". If you were to be in the store, out of uniform on your day off, and tried to assist a customer you can be subjected to "coaching". (Coaching is a mild form of discipline.)

In fact, on the days that you work, if you are just walking through the store on your break and a customer asks you a question, policy dictates that, after you have assusted the customer, no matter how long it takes, you MUST start your break all over.

[Orthonym]

E.g., the convenience store 1/4 mile from me strictly forbids its employees to be armed but doesn't care about lawfully armed customers in the place.

I believe they're worried that one of the help might shoot someone (even if he were an armed robber and righteously deserved it) and the company might be found liable for wrongful death or respondeat superior or something. Cheaper to have the cashier blown away; they weren't paying her that much anyway.

Edited for spelling