Insurance Company Bias against guns in the workplace.

[Tirod]

Well, I tried to have a discussion and started with a rhetorical question. I assumed the High Road could do that . . . and the mod's decided some can't handle a theoretical exercise.

So, as pointed out repeatedly by the pro gun business owners, it's insurance company bias that requires them to make the better economic decision - they have to go along with a no gun policy, even against their wishes, to get a decent price.

Not having insurance isn't an option. Paying double to make a point really isn't - it's just forking over the prepayments for not exercising prior restraint on the employees.

Which may be legal in terms of insurance, but not Right, as in recognizing and allowing us to exercise them. Should employees be allowed to bring guns into the workplace, who knows, all sorts of shootings could occur.

Ah, think about that.

So, the no guns policy is posted, the rates go down, and it never happens, right?

Just like the no guns within 1,000 whatevers around a school.

REGARDLESS, we still have workplace shootings, and we still have school shootings. The insurance company mandate is just as stupid as the school mandate.

How many of you paying the insurance are attempting to make this point with your insurer? Posting a NO GUNS rule means nothing. In fact, it was specifically mentioned - the rule was posted, and guns are still carried on the property, just concealed.

Not criticizing those owners who are making the decision, but aren't we being forced into the unethical practice of saying one thing and doing another? All because the insurance companies say, "We will charge you more for openly carrying firearms." When in reality, more incidents occur on properties that are posted AGAINST carry.

The irony of calling it "going postal" in the day was that we all knew there was a No Guns policy to begin with. Fat lot of good it does. As any survivor of a school shooting knows, even if they aren't willing to admit it.

So, the insurance company is really just suppressing your free speech, but doing nothing about enforcing it. Have they raised the rates for schools that have had guns on the property, or for the post office, or any business that suffers a shooting incident when posted? After all, they ALL had signs and policies, if you offer a carrot, where's the stick for those caught non compliant?

If you let a gun on the property and it's used, it's evident compliance was a farce. Lip service is no defense.

When do we see some push back about the insurance companies and their unlawful restraint on our Rights? The first thread in the series pointed out it's not the government telling us we can't carry at work - it's the insurance companies. Old saying, follow the money - who's forcing their hand on this?

I speculate that insurance agents by and large aren't anti gun, and some even carry in their workplace, too. Adds further irony.

Lie about it and get a discount. Really? Do we have to stoop to that? How is that High Road?

 

[plmitch]

Thats an interesting take on "rights".......

 

[Ed Ames]

The one business decision to move from no weapons policy (though they had a no-violence policy) to a specific no-weapons/guns policy in a workplace that I was directly involved in, had zero to do with insurance.

The business hired a HR consulting company to advise on the employee handbook/policies, as well as train managers. Basically their job was to make sure the policies were not unintentionally causing a violation of labor laws, and to give managers training on how to limit company exposure to employee lawsuits.

One of their recommendations went something like this: "With the rash of workplace shootings, employers could face liability if a shooter injured or killed employees in the workplace. Failure to explicitly prohibit firearms could allow an civil claim on the basis that the employer allowed a condition which enabled workplace shootings. Therefore you should have the most comprehensive no-weapons policy possible, including posting all buildings to prevent concealed carry by employees and customers."

Which the employer, despite protests from managers and employees, did. They barred employees from having weapons (not just guns, but anything that could be seen as a weapo) in employee owned vehicles while on company parking lots too.

The change wasn't triggered by insurance, and had zero impact on insurance rates. It was triggered by fear of lawsuits.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

OP, your tinfoil hat is on a little bit too tight. I spent a decade working in the insurance industry, and I can attest that nothing about this industry is inherently anti-gun.

Simply put, insurance carriers calculate risk and charge premium rates based on that perceived risk. If there are no guns present in an area, then the risk of someone getting shot is zero. If there is a gun present, then the risk of someone getting shot is something greater than zero. That's it.

 

[Tommygunn]

OP, your tinfoil hat is on a little bit too tight. I spent a decade working in the insurance industry, and I can attest that nothing about this industry is inherently anti-gun.

Simply put, insurance carriers calculate risk and charge premium rates based on that perceived risk. If there are no guns present in an area, then the risk of someone getting shot is zero. If there is a gun present, then the risk of someone getting shot is something greater than zero. That's it.

What you really mean is if there are no "known" guns in possession of honest people.
But you can't really know that.
Because the bad guys will have guns as they please, be it a gunfree zone or not.

 

[jmr40]

Simply put, insurance carriers calculate risk and charge premium rates based on that perceived risk. If there are no guns present in an area, then the risk of someone getting shot is zero. If there is a gun present, then the risk of someone getting shot is something greater than zero. That's it.

Best short answer. But up a no guns allowed sign. Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It kills me when business owners assert their right to do as they please with their business (including the right to fire an employee for exercising his or her own rights, whether at work or not), but get all bent out of shape about their own putative rights when some second business owner makes a business decision that runs counter and superior to those of the first business owner.

Remember- your rights are sacrosanct, but entirely subordinate to filthy lucre. You have whatever rights you can pay for, or assert by superior force.

Because capitalism is awesome.

Sucker.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

What you really mean is if there are no "known" guns in possession of honest people.
But you can't really know that.
Because the bad guys will have guns as they please, be it a gunfree zone or not.

Of course. But insurance companies are simply pricing the premium based on the odds of them having to cough up a settlement in a big lawsuit.

 

[barnbwt]

Sounds like the root problem is a government that refuses to protect it citizens and their corporations from predatory lawsuits, specifically gun related ones.

TCB

 

[Tommygunn]

Of course. But insurance companies are simply pricing the premium based on the odds of them having to cough up a settlement in a big lawsuit.

Sure .... but if someone who normally carried was shot and injured in a corporate "gunfree" zone and sued the establishment because he might otherwise have been able to prevent it....whouldn't that cause the insurance company risk calculators to do a re-think/ ... maybe?

 

[texasgun]

given that we all have seen posts like "I had a ND when I dropped my gun in the bathroom, unholstering" ... it doesn't take a lot to comprehend that a business would have to pay HIGHER insurance premiums if there's a chance that Bob's bogger-finger touches the bang switch while at work...

 

[Theohazard]

I think it simply comes down to liability: A company probably assumes a lot more liability by allowing guns, so it often makes sense for them to ban guns on the premises.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like it would be hard to hold the company liable if someone committed a violent crime on the premises but no one was armed because of company policy. But it would probably be a lot easier to hold the company liable if they allowed guns and something bad happened as a result.

 

[WestKentucky]

A lot of business insurance covers lawsuits, so even if it's not the insurance company saying nay, it still is on their behalf. It all boils down to CYA and $$$ if you CYA you don't lose the $$$ when SHTF at work. So by simply putting that statement out, the company can accurately claim that they intended for their workplace to be gun free and Bob Boogerhookbang violated that policy of his own accord. Liability is with mr Boogerhookbang and that is where the lawsuit should be aimed.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

Sure .... but if someone who normally carried was shot and injured in a corporate "gunfree" zone and sued the establishment because he might otherwise have been able to prevent it....whouldn't that cause the insurance company risk calculators to do a re-think/ ... maybe?

No, because that isn't how insurance actuaries evaluate risk. The odds of such a lawsuit succeeding are much smaller than that of a lawsuit filed by someone who was injured as a result of a gun accident or crime at work. Again, it's not anti-gun. It has to do with the perceived mathematical probability of the insurer having to cover a lawsuit or settlement.

given that we all have seen posts like "I had a ND when I dropped my gun in the bathroom, unholstering" ... it doesn't take a lot to comprehend that a business would have to pay HIGHER insurance premiums if there's a chance that Bob's bogger-finger touches the bang switch while at work...

I think it simply comes down to liability: A company probably assumes a lot more liability by allowing guns, so it often makes sense for them to ban guns on the premises.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like it would be hard to hold the company liable if someone committed a violent crime on the premises but no one was armed because of company policy. But it would probably be a lot easier to hold the company liable if they allowed guns and something bad happened as a result.

A lot of business insurance covers lawsuits, so even if it's not the insurance company saying nay, it still is on their behalf. It all boils down to CYA and $$$ if you CYA you don't lose the $$$ when SHTF at work. So by simply putting that statement out, the company can accurately claim that they intended for their workplace to be gun free and Bob Boogerhookbang violated that policy of his own accord. Liability is with mr Boogerhookbang and that is where the lawsuit should be aimed.

Yep to all of these.

 

[Blackbeard]

The way to fix it is through legislation -- make the business owners not liable for the actions of their customers and there will be no reason to charge for extra risk.

 

[WestKentucky]

The issue is not just with customers. The issue would actually be much more aimed at employees. If I owned a business and I say no guns allowed then I can discipline my workers pretty well into compliance. I can also paste the sticker right on the front door for customers, but I have zero control over those customers. Sure I can tell them to leave but my doors are always open to the public so I get those problems. So, if my cashier gets robbed and shot who is going to lose the money? I said no guns and I did some minimal training telling people to put your hands up and open the till...I did my part. I will be responsible under workers comp law for treatment of injuries and such but otherwise I'm pretty much good to go. Workers comp would try to get their money back through some subrogation attempt and they may or may not. Flip that coin...my cashier gets a gun in his face, takes an opportunity to neutralize the threat by use of force and now the robber is injured. My responsibilities now include the robbers medical bills as well as any lawsuit for damages caused by my employee being allowed to act in such manner up to and including a wrongful death suit or manslaughter charge if it is not ruled as justified action. I also get to pay for my attorney but another legal group to represent my employee in both civil and criminal charge cases. Add to all of this the pain and suffering, mental anguish etc from both my employee and the robber based upon my companies actions in that split second decision to counterattack.
It's a lot cheaper and smarter to smile and step away from the till hands up.

 

[blarby]

OP, your tinfoil hat is on a little bit too tight. I spent a decade working in the insurance industry, and I can attest that nothing about this industry is inherently anti-gun.

Simply put, insurance carriers calculate risk and charge premium rates based on that perceived risk. If there are no guns present in an area, then the risk of someone getting shot is zero. If there is a gun present, then the risk of someone getting shot is something greater than zero. That's it.

As someone who still works in that area, I have to agree 100%

There seems to be a LOT of misconceptions and downright ignorance with exactly how losses relate to risk and rates- but it doesn't make it true.

 

[zxcvbob]

It's a lot cheaper and smarter to smile and step away from the till hands up.

And if the robber shoots the cashier anyway, hey at least he didn't shoot you! (the boss) It's easy to find another cashier.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Elected officials....

My state had a new bill or legislation that would prevent insurance discrimination or rate increases due to firearm ownership.
I support those actions fully.
Just because you have a valid CCW license or own weapons shouldn't make you a risk.
I get auto insurance too. I haven't had any traffic accidents or problems since 2004. Am I "high risk" ?

Insurance companies are a scam IMO & are poorly regulated but that's another topic.
You might want to check with the NRA to see if they list any pro-gun insurance carriers/pro 2A. The NRA had a small business network but I'm not sure if they still run it.
Gun owners should support($$$) other gun/2A supporters.

 

[Schwing]

I have not worked in the insurance industry but I have owned my own business and worked in my families business for decades. We employed many people and I don't remember the issue of guns on the premises even coming up from insurance companies.

I don't believe they do. I have worked for a few companies over the years that were "Gun Free" zones. AT&T comes to mind. I am convinced it is an position of ideology and not insurance rates.

 

[WestKentucky]

It did come up with my company. We run multi-line policy for the same business through a single provider. Property insurance, work comp, vehicle, etc. I think we have 5 lines. With 200+ workers and about 190million revenue our costs are surprisingly high in some aspects and low in others. The gun issue was about a .5% change but we are talking over several thousand dollars of rates so that number was considerable. It's hard not to say no guns when on paper it shows a cost of a few thousand bucks a year not to.

 

[GEM]

I went to a presentation about school shooters. The experts clearly said that the calculated payoffs that might be generated by a nut coming to to school are much less than if an employee who is carrying goes nuts or trying to save the day shoots an innocent.

The external nut has responsibility for his or her actions. The institution is not responsible for the nut's action unless it had some very specific interactions with said nut.

Laws that release employers from suits of folks trying to be good samaritans might be useful and I've seen such suggested. But even then the risk of the employee going on a rampage wouldn't be covered. Look at Amy Bishop.

 

[Agsalaska]

Firs off, it is not a violation of your 'rights.' Not even close. You have the right to free speech too. But if you come onto the workplace preaching something I don't like, I don't have to put up with it because of your first amendment rights.

I do want to address your question though as I think it is valid and often misunderstood. I will preface this by saying that I am with a company that prevents firearms in the workplace and am in a position to heavily influence that decision. I also agree with it. Imagine your typical chain retail store.

We do not allow employees to carry guns for two reasons. One, and I think it is overblown, is insurance. While it is cheaper for us, it is more preventative than anything else. Its not so much a savings on the deductible but rather the risk of ND of some kind and the amount of money that would cost. If your resonse to that is 'what about the risk of preventing carry and someone killed in a robbery,' thats not how it works. As much as you think you should be able to you could never win a claim with that argument.

The second reason, and one that most on here will disagree with without anything more than an anecdotal opinion, is because it is safer in the aggregate. Businesses like, say, Radio Shack, Best Buy, Chilis etc do not let employees carry guns because it is safer to let the robbers have it and get them out of the store. Most companies have droves of data to prove that. When people try to defend themselves against a robbery it is more dangerous for everyone in the aggregate. And in the aggregate is very important to understand. The right to carry a gun does not include knowing how to use it in any condition much less a defensive robbery situation. So when you are managing, say, a 1000 shop chain, it is impossible to track and manage the abilities of your employees in such situations. It is also much easier to teach 'let them have it.' Also, it allows you to manage response and training much easier when you know that nobody will defend than it is not knowing who will do what and when.

Because of these two reasons most mass retailers, which is all I can really speak to, do not allow it. And as unpopular as that may be on this board they are 100% right. And it has nothing to do with a stance on the 2nd amendment.

 

[barnbwt]

"The way to fix it is through legislation -- make the business owners not liable for the actions of their customers and there will be no reason to charge for extra risk."
This. The mere threat of lawsuits has become a controlling force, and really just represents a flight of freedom from citizens/businesses to the legal sector of our system. Make it illegal for them to even bring a suit against a business for the actions of a customer or even employee in violation of posted rules, like 'no firing of guns on premises', or simply just referring the matter to criminal/misdemeanor negligence statutes already on the books. Unless a business is encouraging reckless behavior, why should they be liable? If they are not liable, insurance can have no profit-motivation for directing their behavior.

And insurance companies do in fact direct behavior, otherwise my Mega-Corp employer wouldn't be constantly hounding us to eat healthier (while selling wilted salads alongside deep-fried garbage in the lunch room )

"As much as you think you should be able to you could never win a claim with that argument."
I think a very valid claim could be made that both (robber shot dead, negligent discharge) are both negligible risks, compared to fire, flood, or moths (in the case of a clothing store). I think it could be argued that devoting store policy specifically at the issue is overkill, especially since there are plenty of areas where violent robbery occurs regularly, but I'm not aware of ND's occurring more frequently in certain areas, independent of carry laws/carry frequency. Therefore, it can be argued that guns can have a greater potential utility than cost.

Of course, we also have this mode of thinking in this country that you can't be liable for preventing another from the means to save themselves, while liability is expected for merely allowing the same means as the land outdoors. So from a practical, current, perspective, there is in fact more liability. But it makes no sense, and is more due to the NRA not suing every no-gun business with a shooting-death than anything. The same is not true for the opposite case.

"Let them have it"
Is cheaper... in the short run. At some point, though, this has a very corrosive effect on the areas it is practiced, especially when the corrosion reaches outside businesses. It's the same principle practiced in 3rd world hell-holes, and for the same reason --it's cheaper (in money, blood, and trouble) to just let the warlord have what he wants.

TCB

 

[Agsalaska]

"As much as you think you should be able to you could never win a claim with that argument."
I think a very valid claim could be made that both (robber shot dead, negligent discharge) are both negligible risks, compared to fire, flood, or moths (in the case of a clothing store). I think it could be argued that devoting store policy specifically at the issue is overkill, especially since there are plenty of areas where violent robbery occurs regularly, but I'm not aware of ND's occurring more frequently in certain areas, independent of carry laws/carry frequency. Therefore, it can be argued that guns can have a greater potential utility than cost.

Sure. I can also argue the sky is red. But I will lose.


In all fairness, ND is probably not the right working. We would lose because we know it would be safer to prevent them and we didn't. It doesn't really matter how they got hurt.