I have not been able to talk to Jan (a manager in HR I have known for 11 years) but I did run across this piece about a related bill in Oklahoma. Please note the discussion at the end of the section. "we are concerned about worker safety, but..."
The real bottom line is the bottom line.
In January 2002, a new union contract went into effect at the Weyerhaeuser Co. paper mill in Valliant, Okla. One of its clauses mandated a strict "no guns on company property" policy. Previously, the plant had a written policy that permitted employees to have firearms in their vehicles, as long as the vehicles were locked and the guns were out of sight. Company officials insist they informed workers about the change in policy. Quite a few employees claim they never heard a thing about it.
On Oct. 1 of that year, following a drug-related incident at the plant, the company conducted a sweep of vehicles in its parking lot, looking for illegal narcotics. It was the first day of deer-hunting season. The search turned up no drugs, but 12 vehicles contained firearms. All 12 workers were fired.
In a different setting, the incident might have been just another tale of unlucky employees running afoul of "zero-tolerance" rules in an era of zealous homeland-security monitoring and increased liability worries. But in rural Southeastern Oklahoma, where many residents are ranchers and hunters and gun ownership is a cherished tradition, a firestorm of controversy erupted.
"People were outraged and angry, and they still are," says Democrat state Rep. Jerry Ellis, who used to work at the Weyerhaeuser plant himself. With help from the National Rifle Association, Ellis proposed a state law that reads: "No person, property owner, tenant, employer or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle."
It passed by wide margins in both chambers of the state house and was signed by the governor.
"The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund gave support to the employees' legal efforts to get their jobs back," wrote Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the NRA, in an organization publication. "And we worked hard at the grassroots level to help Oklahomans enact their landmark laws to stop this corporate gun ban. We had hoped the new laws would serve as an affirmation of existing public policy, render the legal battle moot and provide reinstatement for the wronged employees."
The effort was stymied, however, when several local employers, including Whirlpool Corp. and ConocoPhillips, obtained an injunction stopping implementation of the measure while it is being appealed. At press time, the law was still being adjudicated in federal court, and Ellis is still angry. "They're defying the will of the people," he says. "These are law-abiding citizens."
While the companies say safety was the primary concern, they also acknowledge another pressing matter was the question of liability: If the state is going to prevent them from implementing what they consider to be a common-sense safety measure on their properties, company representatives say, then companies should not be held liable for gun crimes that take place on said properties. In response, a second measure was passed giving employers immunity from such liability, though some critics say the measure doesn't go far enough.
Feeling the Heat
"Protection from liability isn't going to be much good to the person who's been shot," says Allen J. McKenna, a partner in the Orlando, Fla., office of law firm Ford & Harrison. "But besides that, the scope of the liability protection is not really clear. For example, can employers still be sued for negligent hiring? These are important issues."
The real bottom line is the bottom line.
. Nothing could be further from the truth. HR exists to insure that companies follow employment law and to cover the company's butt. It's really that simple.
