[braindead0]

Not sure if this belongs here, or General Gun Discussions... but.

As many know, Ohio recently passed must issue! Now our company is in a tissy, and getting lots of really bad advice from human resources.. They sent out a employee policy addendum which goes way over the line for many people (searches of private vehicles, no firearms in private vehicles on company property..we own the only parking lot for miles, and things like that).

Well, luckily me and a couple of known shooters are pushing back with the fact. Just today, two more people come out of the woodwork (one anonymously) to complain about the search issue, one was concerned that if he/she was being stalked it meant being defenseless from home to work, and what responsibility will the company accept for requiring that...etc...

My response has been attacking the legality, state law requires that employers do everything reasonable to assure a safe work place.. well the facts are pretty solid that allowing firearms in the workplace is safer than creating a criminal protection zone. Plus the Ohio CHL law provided immunity, but not if you can prove the company had 'malicious intent'. I think a good attorney could argue that point..due to a lot of problems with their policy (it defines "company property" as including any private vehicle in the company parking lot, among other ridiculous things).

The point of this message is, if your company goes off the deep end.. push back and do so as publicly as you can. You never know how many sheep may stand up and BAAAAH when they see they aren't alone..

We are very confident that this policy will change, mostly because 90% of the development department (Including the VP of product development) are very ready to seek other employement if necessary.. that would hurt really bad :evil:

So don't give in to the H.R. trolls!!! Fight back!

[geekWithA.45]

I've always been of the position that even the highest, most senior HR people should never be granted any power greater than filling out 401k enrollment forms.


Congratulations, well done!

[Ben Shepherd]

Job replaceable? Yep, even if very inconvenient.

Life replaceable? Not as far as I know.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Why is it that corporate management is afraid of armed workers? I mean, they have "obtained permission" from the state, so what is the problem? If they are afraid of a workplace shooter lunatic, then armed workers are the lunatic extinguisher. The lunatic probably does not have CHL. :banghead:

[tc300mag1]

Im sure my work dont like the ideal but they know i took half day to go get my gun safty inspected today since i couldnt take it in van i took half day off:)

[Standing Wolf]

I've always had N.R.A. and G.O.A. stickers on my cars. Leftist extremists at two jobs—this was when I lived in the People's Republic of California—decided to get mouthy about them, and one went so far as to complain to the H.R. creature that it "wasn't fair" for the company to "allow N.R.A. propaganda" on company property.

Now that I'm back in the United States, I figure concealed means concealed.

[Ben Shepherd]

The only bumper sticker on the car I drive to work:

Yeah, you can have my gun,
BULLETS FIRST!!!

Short, simple, to the point, and leaves no questions unanswered.

Nobody at work has hassled me in the least.

[CarlS]

Shortly after Florida passed its concealed carry law, a company here made a similar policy. And the HR produced a form on which the policy was explained and required each employee to sign it. One employee called his attorney and had the attorney draw up a paper. This paper stated that the company understood that they were denying the right of self defense. And in the event that something happened and the employee was unable to defend his life or someone else's life due to the company policy, he or his heirs would hold the company liable. The paper called for the signature of the CEO. The employee turned in the unsigned form along with this paper, plus a letter from his attorney advising him not to sign the HR form unless the CEO signed the one the attorney drew up.

Well, after all of this went through HR, upper manangement, and the legal department, the company policy was dropped.

Score one for the good guys!

[cracked butt]

My company just came up with a "violence policy" this last year which prohibited weapons onsite withot prior approval. The President of the company was going over our new policies, and I asked him about it, stating that I often go turkey hunting and goose hunting before work inthe spring and fall, and during the summer, shoot in rifle and pistol matches after work, and if it were a problem if I leave them locked in my truck. He had absolutely no problem with that.

We don't have CCW in our state yet, but that might be a new issue for me to ask about in the future.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Shortly after Florida passed its concealed carry law, a company here made a similar policy. And the HR produced a form on which the policy was explained and required each employee to sign it. One employee called his attorney and had the attorney draw up a paper. This paper stated that the company understood that they were denying the right of self defense. And in the event that something happened and the employee was unable to defend his life or someone else's life due to the company policy, he or his heirs would hold the company liable. The paper called for the signature of the CEO. The employee turned in the unsigned form along with this paper, plus a letter from his attorney advising him not to sign the HR form unless the CEO signed the one the attorney drew up.

Well, after all of this went through HR, upper manangement, and the legal department, the company policy was dropped.

Score one for the good guys!I like to hear that. Great idea.

[braindead0]

This paper stated that the company understood that they were denying the right of self defense. And in the event that something happened and the employee was unable to defend his life or someone else's life due to the company policy, he or his heirs would hold the company liable. The paper called for the signature of the CEO. The employee turned in the unsigned form along with this paper, plus a letter from his attorney advising him not to sign the HR form unless the CEO signed the one the attorney drew up.
That's awesome stuff.

We haven't succeeded here yet, but the odds are pretty good. My letter to HR made sure to point out that failure to allow CCW puts my life (as well as all employees, visitors, etc) at risk which is against the Ohio Revised Code. I don't have an attorney to make a more clear 'threat'.. but I think it gets the point accross.

I'd love to hear more success stories, I think this type of thing can encourage others to do the same. I'm sure many companies it'll be :banghead: but it worth a try!

[scromp]

My employer has a no weapons policy as well, and also attempts to extend it to the company parking lot. Being a multinational company, I assume they are simply unfamiliar with my state's laws -- Kentucky explicitly forbids employers from banning guns in employee-owned vehicles parked on company property. :-) They can only ban guns from their own vehicles.

That's not to say they couldn't still fire you for it, but the "will be prosecuted" part of the policy does ring a bit hollow when you have all the facts in hand.

[SJG26]

"UNAUTHORIZED possession of firearms, concealed weapons, or explosives on company premises...................."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - I am authorized by Multiple states via my state-issued CCW !!!!!!!!!!!

[Henry Bowman]

plus a letter from his attorney advising him not to sign the HR form unless the CEO signed the one the attorney drew up.
Are you an "at will" employee? Are you willing to have them say, " No thanks. See 'ya later."? If so, fine. If not, then turn in the letter but you may not make it a condition for you accepting their policy.

[Sword of Ammon]

I'd really check your state laws.

Many large companies post general policies that are not legal in all (or even most) of their locations.

I have to admit that I don't know my own state laws that well, but I know my employer can not search my person for any reason.

Unless they can detect at .45 with a piss test, you should be ok!!!:D

[revlar]

Even state agencies have been known to adopt/advertise formal policies that are contrary to state law.

Our illustrious Governor just did so as part of his latest hissy-fit over our new CCW law.

[atek3]

.45 with a piss test
that gave me a good smile :)

atek3

[alan]

Re mention of HR in and with regard to the above, did anyone ever stop to think on exactly why the personnel department, nowadays known as Human Resources (HR) was often known as A chanker on the penis of progress??

[ninenot]

FWIW, were I the SVP-HR in your Company, I could care LESS about what you have in your car. But I CAN tell you to keep the weapons out of our buildings...

The HR guys have been told by the insurance company AND the company lawyers that the Company is 'at risk' if there's an incident with an employee--and "at risk" is a BIG no-no for HR guys. So they write a policy which supposedly has 'no risk' for the Company.

Even as a pro-gun NRA member HR guy, I can understand exactly why they wrote the regs--and you can see the policy I would have (except for the HR department personnel, who can carry ANYWHERE on Company property, of course.)

[Texasbagman]

The company I work for has a very stringent "No Weapons" policy. Very similar to what is described in the first post here. All employees had to sign a consent to search form in order to remain employed.

And no, the CEO will not sign a liability statement. They don't have to have legal standing, as they are not trying to enforce any laws. They are making a company policy. One that they will fire you for if you are caught violating.

I made the decision long ago that if they ever actually did try to search vehicles, I would simply walk away. Until that time, concealed means concealed.

Heres a funny story about our HR dept. and our weapons policy. Years ago, when I became a Lead, a group of us were sent to leadership training. More like mind washing than training. Anyway, they go over the company weapons policy, and they mention knives. Now, nowhere in the policy does it mention knives. Only firearms as being prohibited.

I asked what type of knives were prohibited. HR rep. stated that any knife with a blade over 2" was not allowed. And she mentioned that this was state law as well. I responded that state law set the legal limit at 5.5" and that there was no mention of knives in the company policy handbook. I also brought up the fact that one of the 10 and 15 year company service gifts was a Case folder with a 3.75" blade.

She got real irritated and said, "Well, I don't think it will be an issue as I don't know anybody that carries a knife that big, do you?"

So about half of the new Leads, about 10 guys, pulled out various folders out of our pockets that we use everyday at work. All of them had blades over 2" long.

She moved on to another subject. I never heard anymore about that policy.

[alan]

Texasbagman:

Re the "leadership training" or "mindwashing" program you mentioned, and the lady from HR, and her schpiel (the line she was peddloing), as I said earlier, that is why HR types (formerly known as the personnel dept.), are often known as "chankers on the penis of progress".

For many years, I worked in engineering, and I could tell you some truly wonderful tales about the "personnel departments", and the role of SAND IN THE GEARS that such clowns played.

[braindead0]

Today is the 'must be signed by' day, haven't heard word one.. haven't signed.. My email to them:

After considerable review of the attached policy, I need to ask if signing this is a condition of employement.

I understand this has generated a lot of comment, so I'll gladly add mine.

The stated intent of the policy in question appears to be “In the interest of maintaining a workplace that is safe and free of violence”. Yet the legal activities that are prohibited in the policy document promote employee safety, in particular concealed firearms have been proven to reduce crime in all states that enact must issue laws, as well as reducing the number and severity of multiple victim public shootings. Ohio Revised Code 4101.2 states in part that “No employer shall fail to do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of such employees or frequenters.”

In addition to the safety aspects, the policy attempts to define company property as including the private property of anyone that comes into the company buildings or enters any company lands. For example, the policy forbids the possession or use of ‘dangerous weapons’ on company property and then proceeds to define company property to include all vehicles that come onto company property. The extension of the usual and normal meaning of “Company Property” is open to abuse and could be interpreted as “malicious purpose” under 2923.126 C(2)(a) and thus negate the immunities provided by law.

Further the paragraph beginning “Dangerous Weapons” goes on to reference a section of code that applies to the well defined categories “dangerous ordinance” and “deadly weapons”. The term “Dangerous Weapons” appears in the O.R.C. precisely once and is further never defined. I believe that use of non standard terminology makes this policy vague.



Yea, I hit them with some FUD.... just figured I'd put out the list of biggest potential problems as I view them. I'll keep this thread posted, maybe I'll have a success story to add to the list!

[braindead0]

So, it seems that they are just going back off this entire thing, half or more of the company is now under the new policy and those of us who didn't sign under the old policy. How's that for a problem.. but not mine ;-).

Hopefully this time they'll talk to a real lawyer and if they must have a new policy, create something reasonable.

[CarlS]

Today is the 'must be signed by' day, haven't heard word one.. haven't signed.. My email to them:

Very well written, braindead0. And it sounds like the company is rethinking their policy.

[Pheonix]

http://www.bmsa.com/bio.aspx?id=5

This is my Companys lawyer. At the top of the page it says "contact us" I encourage you to send him a short note.

[braindead0]

This is my Companys lawyer. At the top of the page it says "contact us" I encourage you to send him a short note.
I'm not sure what I'd send him a short note about, at this time it appears to be a moot point. Until such a time as they come up with 'something new', I'll be in 'wait and see' mode. I feel sorry for all the folks that signed and returned that policy no questions asked.

[Pheonix]

I realise it is less effective than talking to a wall, however I tried to give him a short explanation of who carries with a license and will obay the signs and laws and who carries and does not. I tried to show him who should be feared and who should not.

[braindead0]

So, the 'deadline' has come and gone.. many people haven't signed and nobody has heard a peep outta the H.R. 'department'.

I think at least this is a partial success, we've managed to get them to rethink things.

One of my co-workers says he's pretty sure they're trying to come up with some way to 'save face' so they don't look like idiots.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain childish. Adults face up to their mistakes and fix them without trying to hide the fact that they made a mistake. As far as I'm concerned this type of activity makes them worse than politicians in my eyes... :fire:

[braindead0]

They just spammed everybody that didn't sign and didn't complain about it (that would not include me of course). Again telling them to sign and return the policy..

This leaves a company with dual standards, those foolish enough to sign are under the new policy those who didn't are not...

Boy this is some serious stupid stuff going on... fun to watch, too bad I'm in the middle of it now :evil:

[spacemanspiff]

In addition to the safety aspects, the policy attempts to define company property as including the private property of anyone that comes into the company buildings or enters any company lands. For example, the policy forbids the possession or use of ‘dangerous weapons’ on company property and then proceeds to define company property to include all vehicles that come onto company property. The extension of the usual and normal meaning of “Company Property” is open to abuse and could be interpreted as “malicious purpose” under 2923.126 C(2)(a) and thus negate the immunities provided by law.
interesting. so while your vehicle is on 'company property', it becomes 'property of the company'? wonder if you could file claims with their insurance should something happen to your vehicle. afterall, it is THEIR property while its on THEIR lot, right?

a lot of times the efforts at writing new company policy regarding weapons has to do with insurance. a liability insurance carrier may want to review things such as a companys employee handbook, to see how they have addressed issues like workplace harrassment, consumption of alcoholic beverages/illegal drugs, and whether or not weapons are prohibited.

from the standpoint of the insurance carrier, it reduces risk of having to pay a claim if the employer turns company property into a 'disarmed zone'. they feel that there is a lesser chance of having to pay out for 'wrongful deaths' on those premises.
an insurance carrier can rest assured that wrongful death claims arising BECAUSE every employee is disarmed will be denied, because an employee is under no obligation to keep that job and comply with being disarmed.
the insurance carrier will argue that the employee could have found work elsewhere.

i talked with a guest speaker last winter about it, his presentation was about workplace accidents and how they can be avoided with the help of insurance agents. i asked him how he felt about 'no-weapons' policies and he gave the usual boilerplate answer.
i told him the same things we all say about this kind of thing, how a simple policy wont prevent a disgruntled employee from bringing a weapon and harming others, much like the laws that prohibit criminals from possessing a weapon dont prevent them from obtaining any.
but he went on about how employers can look for 'warning signs' and how 'patterns of violence can be observed', hopefully to lead up to firing the employee before they go on a killing spree.

the next speaker was from OSHA, and he was more on the topic of contractors and keeping their employees safe from slip-and-falls, and whatnot. but he noticed i had a copy of SWAT with me to read between sessions and he starts going on about how much he loves shooting. so it wasnt a total loss.

[braindead0]

A new tidbit of information, apparantly the company I work for actually 'leases' the property from another company (same people own it)... I'm guessing for some tax benefits or some such.. not sure..

I don't think it changes anything really.. but how much control can a lessee have over the property? I'm guessing plenty, but I don't know.

[Pheonix]

Braindead, Where do you work? You can E- Mial me the answer if you feel like telling me.

[MacEntyre]

No company can make you sign an agreement after they hire you.

[Trebor]

No company can make you sign an agreement after they hire you.

Not true. If you live in an "at will" employment state, they can let you go for pretty much any reason. They can change the policies after you've been hired and, if you don't sign the new policy, they can choose to let you go for hat. The only exception is if you are covered by a union contract.

[MacEntyre]

...but they can't make you sign an agreement after you've been hired.

Of course, in an at-will state, such as the one I live in, they can fire you for any reason.

But if no one caved, then their coercion would fail, even in an at-will state.

[coltrane679]

Wow, this thread had been dead for almost two years!

But, ironically, there is a post today over at the Volokh Conspiracy that is pretty interesting on this topic:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_25-2007_03_03.shtml#1172468861

[Sage of Seattle]

Since I haven't been on THR since 2004 and I understand this is a bit late, I just had to put my snarky comment in:

Unless they can detect at .45 with a piss test, you should be ok!!

I've heard about one piss test you might try. Take out your .45 and show it to your boss. If he pisses his pants, you failed. :neener:

[alan]

What are nowadays known as HR People, used to be known as Personnel People. Not without good reason, they were also known as Chankers On The Penis Of Progress.

Re some of the preceding comments, it seems as if The More Things Change, The More They are The Same. I first came upon the above in French, where it read as follows. Please bear with my on the diminished quality of my French. Plus ce changer, plus le meme choise.

[jlbraun]

"Chankers On The Penis Of Progress"

Low Road. :mad:

[stevemis]

If the company claims your vehicle is company property, simply ask them if they are willing to remit the loan, tax and insurance payments on your behalf.

[jnojr]

The company I work for has a very stringent "No Weapons" policy. Very similar to what is described in the first post here. All employees had to sign a consent to search form in order to remain employed.

Who on Earth would sign such a thing? I might sign it to keep my job for the very short-term while I found another job, but if they ever actually came to "search" me, I'd hit the door.

Absolutely outrageous. I've never heard of employers in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union searching their employees. I'll bet employees in Cuba and Venezuela aren't subjected to this. North Korea... maybe. I could picture it there.

[alan]

jlbraun "Chankers On The Penis Of Progress"

Low Road.

---------------

Sorry if my phrasing offended you or your sensibilities, however respecting some things I've seen The Personnel Department and or those who reside therein party to, some raw and nasty, some just plain stupid, the phrase I used might just be complimentary.

[Zach S]

I have to admit that I don't know my own state laws that well, but I know my employer can not search my person for any reason.
Depends. You probably signed a paper buried in that massive pile of new hire documents giving them permission to. I probably did as well.