Critique my letter please.

[Sisco]

Human Resources sent out "The Letter" today saying that gunbuster signs will be posted tomorrow banning weapons not only from the offices but all company property. I have composed an email but have not sent it yet.
I have edited out the name of the company. You will see references to "The shooting pit". We used to have an employee maintained range on company property but it was closed down after an employee was injured by an ND. It may or may not re-open, that's up to the board of directors
"21st Century Leadership" is a company management style they've been touting for several years now. the quote in the letter is taken from the HR reps email signature line.

Here's the draft of my letter:

I understand a desire to exclude firearms from being brought into the offices and buildings, but if I were a licensed permit holder under the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act I would hope that I would be allowed to leave my firearm secured in my vehicle on those occasions when I chose to exercise my right to carry while en route to and from work.

If hunting is allowed to continue on company property and the shooting pit would be reopened, this policy will also cause a major inconvenience for those employees that wish to take target practice or go hunting after working hours.

While 21st Century Leadership emphasizes trust among the people of (Company name), the policy appears to be contrary to that ideal.

"(Company name) people value, and expect one another to behave in ways that consistently exhibit the characteristics of technical competency, respect and dignity, accountability, integrity, trustworthiness, and servant leadership. We believe the consistent application of these core values in reaching the "best answer" in all cases will best enable us to fulfill our mission statement of providing reliable, long-term power supply and transmission services to our Member-owners at the lowest possible cost consistent with sound business and cooperative principles”.

I guess my question would be, is the policy set in stone or is there a chance for compromise?

 

[thexrayboy]

Seems like a reasonable letter. Do not expect a change in policy though. This recent change towards prohibiting firearms is almost certainly in response to the person injured at the range on company property. Even if said person did not pursue redress from the company those in risk managment and the companies loss insurer will want to preclude this from ever happening again. It's sad but employers are driven to make policy changes based on the threat or potential threat an activity poses.

 

[Sisco]

As far as the range goes, management had us form a committee to come up with proposals to enhance safety etc to possibly reopen it, I am on that committee.
The guy that shot himself has no intention of filing any kind of claim.
What really sucks is that as a supervisor there may come a day when I have no choice but to "Hang paper" on a person that violates the gun rule. Wouldn't do it by choice but sometimes one has no choice in these matters.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Just a Note

A little something from my own meagre management expertise:

In the professional conduct of our business, we frequently have to exert corrective influence over method, process, and even individuals.

It is axiomatic that a corrective measure that is incorrectly addressed or exceeds its scope will be detrimental rather than beneficial.

The punishment -- or restriction -- of the whole of a group because of an individual infraction is clearly an action that exceeds its scope, resulting in more harm than good, not the least of which are harm to morale and esprit de corps.

I would ask that whatever corrective measures are taken, they are appropriate in both direction and scope. Nothing is served by creating the perception of knee-jerk over-reaction or over-correction.

Pinpoint correction, such as that which we use in our normal professional processes, would seem more appropriate and measured.

 

[TheSunDanceKid]

hmm what kind of company may i ask is this that has a firing range in it not the name or anything just kinda wondering what kinda company it is

 

[Sisco]

hmm what kind of company may i ask is this that has a firing range in it not the name or anything just kinda wondering what kinda company it is

It is an electrical generation facility, company owns 10,000 acres that surround it.
Thanks for the input, giving me some good ideas. One reason I'm not going all out on this and really rocking the boat is that I'm up for a long awaited promotion and it would not behoove me to step on any toes at this point.
What really amazes me is that the plant manager seems to be behind this. He's a gun owner, taught his kids to shoot at the range but for some reason would feel "more comfortable" not having any firearms on site. Meaning CCW, the range and hunting.

 

[230RN]

From an old-time prfreeder/editer:

"those employees that wish"

should be:

"those employees who wish"

"Who" is for people, "that" is for objects.
----------------
Rethink what you are trying to say here and cut it to two or three short sentences:

"(Company name) people value, and expect one another to behave in ways that consistently exhibit the characteristics of technical competency, respect and dignity, accountability, integrity, trustworthiness, and servant leadership. We believe the consistent application of these core values in reaching the "best answer" in all cases will best enable us to fulfill our mission statement of providing reliable, long-term power supply and transmission services to our Member-owners at the lowest possible cost consistent with sound business and cooperative principles."

EXAMPLE: "As professional staff, we..."

Sounds like you were incorporating corporate buzzthink into your e-mail.
-------------------

Be more affirmative:
"I guess my question would be, is the policy set in stone or is there a chance for compromise?"

EXAMPLE:

"I (or 'we,' as in the above selection) suggest that some modifications to the proposed policy in light of our very real concerns for personal defense, the opportunity to hunt on company property, and the opportunity to practice in the pit will enhance the quality of the work environment for the company."

And always add:

"Respectfully submitted."

Respectfully submitted,

230RN


---------
To TheSunDanceKid:

It's obviously a power company. They typically have large amounts of land and water and rights-of-way.

 

[Sisco]

Sounds like you were incorporating corporate buzzthink into your e-mail.

That is the corporate buzzthink, taken directly from the Executive Manager who sent the email. It's in her signature line.

 

[230RN]

ARFIN --

Them's a fine set of words. It's one of those things you "know," but it's good to see the concept so elegantly stated.

Just a Note
A little something from my own meagre management expertise:

In the professional conduct of our business, we frequently have to exert corrective influence over method, process, and even individuals.

It is axiomatic that a corrective measure that is incorrectly addressed or exceeds its scope will be detrimental rather than beneficial.

The punishment -- or restriction -- of the whole of a group because of an individual infraction is clearly an action that exceeds its scope, resulting in more harm than good, not the least of which are harm to morale and esprit de corps.

I would ask that whatever corrective measures are taken, they are appropriate in both direction and scope. Nothing is served by creating the perception of knee-jerk over-reaction or over-correction.

Pinpoint correction, such as that which we use in our normal professional processes, would seem more appropriate and measured.

I agree with the xrayboy, though, that the chances of going back to the old ways are pretty slim. These things are liability-driven. Attorneys are in the business of protecting their clients/employers, and the best liability-driven answer to anything controversial is usually "no." (Obvious, perhaps, but it should be kept in mind while sitting around the negotiating table.)

Some things that might be put on the table are:

(1) Employees cannot use the range facilities until they get through their probationary period.

(2) Users of the range or hunting privileges must sign a waiver of liability.

(3)...

SISCO:

That manager sounds like she'd fit into a chapter in Scott Adams' next Dilbert(TM) book.

 

[Odnar]

Out of curiosity, what does "ND" mean?

Do all the execs in your company use such flowery language?

 

[MSGT9410]

ND = Negligent Discharge

 

[Baba Louie]

Sisco,
Too bad about the range ND with the repercussions that affect all.

Any possibility of corporate selling/leasing range and some surrounding property to an employee formed "Rod and Hunting Club"? Just as an alternative thought to total clamp down. Something to (maybe) explore in the hopes of limiting corporate liability (thus, their "deep pockets") from any future litigious equations which might crop up.

If potential promotion is upcoming, I agree on not rocking the boat, but would also raise a question concerning personal safety guarantee that corporate may or may not be able to provide to staff in the unlikely event of disgruntled staff or spousal unit flipping out w/ revenge on mind... unlikely, but things can, do, have and will happen now and then.

10,000 acres is what? 15+ sq. mi. of property? (a goodly chunk o' dirt).

When I was a kid, my Grandpa worked at the Lake City Ammunition plant in Independence MO and we used to go plinking and fishing on a couple of lakes contained on the property. This was obviously back in the dark ages of the late '50's/early '60's. Caught my first bluegill and bass there on bamboo pole.

 

[Steve N]

Unfortunately, we the people have let the lawyers take over, and say no to everything, just because no one can take responsibility for their own actions. Looking at this from the company perspective, say one employee "goes postal" and uses a gun that the company permitted the employee to carry in his car, to wound/kill fellow employees. The jury would triple the damages just for having allowed a gun on the premises.

Remember, people don't kill people, guns do!

 

[Mainsail]

I understand a desire to exclude firearms from being brought into the offices and buildings, but if I were a licensed permit holder under the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act I would hope that I would be allowed to leave my firearm secured in my vehicle on those occasions when I chose to exercise my right to carry while en route to and from work.

It seems like you’re willing to ‘settle’ for leaving your weapon locked in your car. What happens when a thief smashes your window to steal a few CDs you inadvertently left in view and finds a loaded gun? Seriously, we don’t need to be responsible for arming petty criminals.

The most secure place for your carry weapon is in a holster - on your person.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Please don't take anything personally...

I understand a desire to exclude firearms from being brought into the offices and buildings, but if I were a licensed permit holder under the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act I would hope that I would be allowed to leave my firearm secured in my vehicle on those occasions when I chose to exercise my right to carry while en route to and from work.

If this is the whole letter, give it an introduction... something like... "this is in response to the memo issued 01/22/07 entitled 'all serfs must disarm' (or whatever it said).

I would not affirmatively identify myself to the company as having, getting, or even remotely interested in having a permit to carry. I have first hand experience with this and strongly suggest that you avoid this topic matter unless you are executive level or higher, or know several influential ones.

How about something like:

"Walker's Widgets has always been respectful of employee sportsmen and firearm enthusiasts. This is in fact one of the benefits that many employees avail themselves of (referring to the pit). This recent memo completely eliminates that benefit without even so much as a courtesy discussion with the employees.

IF, and ONLY if you raise the permit issue:

"Additionally, under the Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act I would hope that employees who have obtained a permit to carry a firearm; who may have testifed in court, have protection orders against criminals or a variety of other reason would not be put in jeopardy of being fired for merely wanting to be able to protect themselves. A prohibition of this nature would most certainly expose Walker Widgets to at least liability should such a person be injured or killed by an attacker due to this policy."

I would close with something more affirmative - I like the quote about 21st century leadership and would leave it.
...
"In closing, since the issue of "pit use" and after hours hunting is not yet decided, my manager and I would like to meet to discuss this issue further to better understand what the actual intent of this memo is, it's implementation and reach a mutual understanding on it."

Do not "ask" about reaching a compromise. Also, it may help to have your shooting buddies see if they will join you.

those are my few pieces of eight...

 

[another okie]

I agree with not putting anything about the permit in the letter.

Actually I think it would be better to say and do nothing right now. Wait until the CCW law has been in effect awhile and everyone can see that there have been no shootouts over parking spaces or bad coffee.

Tactically you should have a number of key personnel on board with you before approaching management, including (hopefully) a few that have unique or difficult to replace skills. The more who sign off to start with the better your chances of reversing the policy.

Another good tactic is to have a policy already written up to offer as an alternative. You might consider a policy that allows unloaded firearms in cars in the parking lot, and then try to ramp it up later.

 

[Sisco]

Thank you for all the suggestions, as usual THR members come through.
"The letter" is not going to be sent though.
I had a chat with one of the managers today; he's the chairman of the range committee and an avid RKBA supporter. In fact, his office is responsible for company security.
He told me he talked until he was almost blue in the face but was unable to sway opinion on the no guns policy. Maybe in due time changes will come about but for now there ain't no way.