Insurance Company Bias against guns in the workplace.

[LemmyCaution]

No its not because we know it to be true. We know that driving without a seatbelt is more dangerous than not. We also know that asking our employees to cooperate with robbers is also safer than not. You are right in the sense that we we take the decision out of our employees hands and of course many on here couldn't handle that. We do it for aggregate safety as well. I get it. I also pointed out that it is not perfect. It is just the best option, by far, statistically(probably a good spot to refer back to the insurance part of this thread).

I think my hostility toward what you are saying stems largely from the soulless utilitarianism with which you are expressing your point. You keep talking statistics and actuarial concerns regarding the lives of people. You talk about training human responses out of the humans that are in the employ of these firms. And you do so with a paternalistic and authoritarian tone that mocks any thought to the contrary.

You blithely assert that some non-zero percentage of these human employees will come to harm or death as a result of a corporate policy that removes any moral agency from these employees, who are the ones actually there, insisting that in all cases the wisdom of the remote corporate office not just overrides this from a business standpoint, but is in fact obviously and unquestionably correct. You are asking some random sample of humanity to lay down their lives for an actuarial table.

You are effectively producing a collateral damage estimate, and frankly BSing us that the intent is to save lives, rather than to reduce liability. And you've rightly concluded that other persons in power, of a similar nature to your own, have constructed a legal system that absolves your preferred mode from liability, never questioning that the foundation of that legal regime may be as morally corrupt as what it absolves… -is actually constructed specifically to absolve the corruption of those who strive for power.

So, yes, on a forum that exists to discuss the ethics, limits, and practical concerns of armed self-defense- that sees armed self-defense as a natural right, you are going to see a lot of hostility because you are, without saying exactly so, arguing that such concerns are a trivial, sentimental shuck that is laughably subordinate to the prerogatives of corporate managers.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand why the corporate policy exists: it maximizes the benefit and minimizes the risk to the corporation. That is the end all, be all. But that is why SCOTUS was wrong in determining that corporations are people. They're not. Or at least, if they are people, they are psychopaths.

And so at the end of the day, sure, the corporate policy exists. But the decision whether or not to follow it really boils down to the rational judgment of the individual employee, with full cognizance of the risks, should the decision be made to value one's life more than one's job.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think my hostility toward what you are saying stems largely from the soulless utilitarianism with which you are expressing your point.

This is a thread about insurance. There is nothing more soulless and utilitarian than the idea that a human life boils down to a certain amount of money based on age, education, and other factors. It is still valuable.

The gap I see is this: I don't have a problem with the policy. I don't have a problem with a business taking the best available choice even knowing it won't work out well for all employees. I don't have a problem with individual employees deciding they are going to violate policy and carry, or defend themselves, anyway. I don't even have a problem with such employees being terminated for violating company policy afterwards.

I have a problem with people thinking that a company policy has, or should have, any moral weight. That you are a good or bad person depending on whether you follow the policies, or make policies that meet some ideal standard. It's just policy. You follow it when you can but your decisions are always your own to make. Same with the consequences.

I think a lot of people fall into a childhood "I'm doing what daddy told me so I'm a good person!", patterns, or, "You are breaking the policy so you are bad!", that really don't make much sense.

 

[Agsalaska]

I think my hostility toward what you are saying stems largely from the soulless utilitarianism with which you are expressing your point. You keep talking statistics and actuarial concerns regarding the lives of people. You talk about training human responses out of the humans that are in the employ of these firms. And you do so with a paternalistic and authoritarian tone that mocks any thought to the contrary.

You blithely assert that some non-zero percentage of these human employees will come to harm or death as a result of a corporate policy that removes any moral agency from these employees, who are the ones actually there, insisting that in all cases the wisdom of the remote corporate office not just overrides this from a business standpoint, but is in fact obviously and unquestionably correct. You are asking some random sample of humanity to lay down their lives for an actuarial table.

You are effectively producing a collateral damage estimate, and frankly BSing us that the intent is to save lives, rather than to reduce liability. And you've rightly concluded that other persons in power, of a similar nature to your own, have constructed a legal system that absolves your preferred mode from liability, never questioning that the foundation of that legal regime may be as morally corrupt as what it absolves… -is actually constructed specifically to absolve the corruption of those who strive for power.

So, yes, on a forum that exists to discuss the ethics, limits, and practical concerns of armed self-defense- that sees armed self-defense as a natural right, you are going to see a lot of hostility because you are, without saying exactly so, arguing that such concerns are a trivial, sentimental shuck that is laughably subordinate to the prerogatives of corporate managers.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand why the corporate policy exists: it maximizes the benefit and minimizes the risk to the corporation. That is the end all, be all. But that is why SCOTUS was wrong in determining that corporations are people. They're not. Or at least, if they are people, they are psychopaths.

And so at the end of the day, sure, the corporate policy exists. But the decision whether or not to follow it really boils down to the rational judgment of the individual employee, with full cognizance of the risks, should the decision be made to value one's life more than one's job.

OK listen you can complicate this as much as you want, blame corporations, the supreme court, my souless utilitarianism(although it is the exact opposite), whatever. Someone made the point that nobody would defend someone elses stuff. I pointed out, factually, that they actually will and you have to train that out of them, and now I am 'paternalistc.' Whatever.

The truth is, at the end of the day, we make these decisions to make people safer. Because it is safer. We want our employees to be safe. We want our customers to be safe. And this is the safest way to do that. I understand you may have a problem with that. I dont. Anyone who was in charge of a retail chain that did not have a policy like that in place would undoubtedly be creating a far more dangerous environment creating more risk for their employees, customers, and shareholders than those that do. Thats bad leadership. Thats why 99.9% do it. So it may seam paternalistic or inhuman or whatever to you but for us it is absolutely the right thing to do.

 

[Agsalaska]

This is a thread about insurance. There is nothing more soulless and utilitarian than the idea that a human life boils down to a certain amount of money based on age, education, and other factors. It is still valuable.

The gap I see is this: I don't have a problem with the policy. I don't have a problem with a business taking the best available choice even knowing it won't work out well for all employees. I don't have a problem with individual employees deciding they are going to violate policy and carry, or defend themselves, anyway. I don't even have a problem with such employees being terminated for violating company policy afterwards.

I have a problem with people thinking that a company policy has, or should have, any moral weight. That you are a good or bad person depending on whether you follow the policies, or make policies that meet some ideal standard. It's just policy. You follow it when you can but your decisions are always your own to make. Same with the consequences.

I think a lot of people fall into a childhood "I'm doing what daddy told me so I'm a good person!", patterns, or, "You are breaking the policy so you are bad!", that really don't make much sense.

Good post Ed. I agree with all of that. I wouldnt refer to it as 'moral weight' policy either.

 

[Sam1911]

I have a problem with people thinking that a company policy has, or should have, any moral weight. That you are a good or bad person depending on whether you follow the policies, or make policies that meet some ideal standard. It's just policy. You follow it when you can but your decisions are always your own to make. Same with the consequences.

I think a lot of people fall into a childhood "I'm doing what daddy told me so I'm a good person!", patterns, or, "You are breaking the policy so you are bad!", that really don't make much sense.

Hear, hear! And well said.

 

[Tommygunn]

OK listen you can complicate this as much as you want, blame corporations, the supreme court, my souless utilitarianism(although it is the exact opposite), whatever. Someone made the point that nobody would defend someone elses stuff. I pointed out, factually, that they actually will and you have to train that out of them, and now I am 'paternalistc.' Whatever.

The truth is, at the end of the day, we make these decisions to make people safer. Because it is safer. We want our employees to be safe. We want our customers to be safe. And this is the safest way to do that. I understand you may have a problem with that. I dont. Anyone who was in charge of a retail chain that did not have a policy like that in place would undoubtedly be creating a far more dangerous environment creating more risk for their employees, customers, and shareholders than those that do. Thats bad leadership. Thats why 99.9% do it. So it may seam paternalistic or inhuman or whatever to you but for us it is absolutely the right thing to do.

I think I sorta get what you're saying. I think Jeff Cooper once said something to the effect (I can't remember the exact quote) that one may run from evil, but evil is not defeated by running. Again I forget the exact wording, but I think many many people here tend to subscribe to that way of thinking, as many here have been taught to be independent, or to never surrender our rights.
Insurance companies won't calculate the costs of injured parties who have been hurt after being disarmed at work because no lawsuits happen due to that and even if they did the numbers are still on the "other" side. And I guess that means the $$$ too. Oh well.

Although many here are critical of you I guess in the end I have to say, having read through this thread, I get your point. I don't like it, but hey, there's a LOT of things going on in this country & world I "don't like."
Are you being "utilitarian?" Meh.... I'd say practical, or realistic.
Keep in mind ( ) something Mark Twain once said and maybe it'll help you feel a little better ... or give you a chuckle; "none but the dead are permitted to speak the truth."

 

[Agsalaska]

I appreciate the post and the open mind tommygun.

 

[JTHunter]

Ed Ames said:

They barred employees from having weapons (not just guns, but anything that could be seen as a weapon) in employee owned vehicles while on company parking lots too.

I used to work in a "food production facility" that made margarine and butter blends for other manufacturers. Half of the workers walked around with razor knives (AKA "box-cutters") in their pockets or holsters on their belts. Even the 3rd shift supervisor would bring his diamond honing set to work sometimes and sharpen his and others personal knives. And some weren't "pocket" knives!

 

[barnbwt]

"This is a thread about insurance. There is nothing more soulless and utilitarian than the idea that a human life boils down to a certain amount of money based on age, education, and other factors. It is still valuable."
Agreed. Corporations, while 'legally people,' don't operate with morality, just profit motivation (which is what I hope the earlier post about psycopaths was directed toward as opposed to our friendly business-manager Agsalaska ). They are really more like robots, or super-intelligent insects. Their whole purpose in life is to generate wealth, and grow to both ensure and magnify the wealth. But they are not social animals; their decision-making is too detached from specific operations to transmit any emotional motivations in either direction. This is by design, since pure logic is assumed to be the most reliable route to prosperity. They are like an insect or robot, with very crude sense organs and nervous systems, whose world-view is defined by a very narrow purpose and discrete data streams. They are not truly self-aware in the same way humans are (which is why they require auditors)

So, you can't change a corp's profit motive impulse any more than human nature; got it. So what do we do? Put in place a system so that impulse does not conflict with others' --that's what governance is all about. Which is why I think removing the cost of guns from the calculation though immunity laws for employers would be a very elegant way of moving our individual rights out of conflict with our employers' success. Win-win, except for the exceedingly rare cases of individual negligence or veritable acts of God. Cases in which the fruits of lawsuits would be either unjustified (negligent discharges are the shooter's fault, not the location's) or insufficient no matter what (mass shootings/terrorism) don't hold a candle to a Right. Cases in which the community can either remedy (through charity) or punish (through negligent discharge laws) those involved without the need for hamstringing their freedoms.

The Clarence Darrow quote above is quite fitting, actually; bad laws carry a lot of fixed-costs to society, themselves

TCB

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Corporations do what is expedient for them to lower overhead which maximizes profits. It is cheaper for the corporation to "train out" responding to a robbery attempt than the cost of training the same personnel for self defense.

Likewise, it is cheaper for the same corporation to pay a security subcontractor to provide professional security than to train an employee in a low wage, high turnover position to be proficient in self defense to the same level as the professional security guard.

I worked for an engineering firm with profits measured in billions of dollars. We had mandatory safety training on a number of subjects every year. The corporate line was always that they wanted to ensure the employees were as safe as possible in their job - a noble stance - but NOT the true motivation for the training.

I always advocated "follow the money" to find out the REAL reason for the corporation doing anything. In the case of safety training, the real reason was that the workman's compensation insurance company made it clear that if the company mandated safety training on specific subjects with a training curriculum that met their requirements; that the injury rate per thousand work hours would probably go down - and when that happened, so would their insurance costs.

I finally got the training director to 'fess up to the fact that what they were really after was lower insurance underwriting costs and that employee safety was a byproduct.

I guess you'd call that a win / win...?

So, in the case of the convenience store clerk, you have the same motivation. It's cheaper to let the criminals take whatever they want than it is to train an employee in a high turnover position to be competent in self defense.

The statistics show that very few people get injured with this policy so again - I guess you would have to classify this as a win / win situation no matter how personally distasteful the policy may be to people who advocate personal responsibility and self preservation through self defense.

Looking at it differently, employees are a fungible commodity. They're all the same and easily replaced which is why the employee who violates the corporate "no defense" policy is fired.

 

[Agsalaska]

Buckhorn, I do appreciate your post and and agree with the some of it. I know that this may be straying a little, but I do not think it is fair to discount managements feelings towards employees. The 'REAL reason' is probably not insurance. That is certainly a driving factor but I assure you managers care about their employees. They are most certainly not a fungible commodity and are not all the same. I see how that can be the perception but it is rarely reality. Most of the decision makers that I have worked with from a wide variety of businesses care deeply about their employees.

You are 100% right though about the fact that it is cheaper and easier not to train said employees in competent defense. Especially when you consider the wide variety of people out there. It is statistically safer, and when you do have outliers you hire security.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

They are most certainly not a fungible commodity and are not all the same. I see how that can be the perception but it is rarely reality. Most of the decision makers that I have worked with from a wide variety of businesses care deeply about their employees.

Then you're truly naïve - or have somehow managed to be associated with companies outside the norm. I am a fungible commodity despite the unique skills that I have which you would be hard pressed to find outside of the national laboratories.

I've worked at three, large engineering firms, and you'll have to believe me, employees ARE a fungible commodity and will not be kept on once their reimbursement rate falls below 85% for a very short time - no matter how long they've worked for the company, and no matter their education level, professional reputation, or how unique their skillset may be.

No company I have worked for "cared deeply about their employees." The ONLY thing I could ever pinpoint that management "cared deeply" about was making sure profits were at the level required to qualify for a bonus. Nearly every management decision could easily be traced to lowering overhead costs in order to increase profits to ensure management bonuses were paid.

I have observed management refusing to renew professional accreditations as being "too costly," not giving employees training time (goes to overhead) and tuition costs (goes to overhead) to remain certified in specialty fields, pushing more work to the edges (to the engineers) so that administrative tasks had to be done by the engineering staff on their own time or forcing them to use project time for overhead tasks - and any number of other decisions made to shift work and costs from administration to the technical staff to lower overhead.

Let me give you one more very simple example. About 3x a year we received an email from one of the corporate wonks encouraging the employees to buy stock through an employee payroll deduction.

Why would they do that? Because engineering company stocks have the potential for big stock gains? They pay exceptional dividends? You can answer "No" to both of those. Because having the employee invest in the company builds loyalty etc.?

No. The reason is because it increases the trading of the stock, and what is one of the metrics used by stock analysts in evaluating stocks? The number of shares traded. If the number of shares traded (bought) goes up, the stock price goes up and who does that benefit? Management who gets stock as part of their bonus plan.

Follow the money....

I've done this for 35 years, I'm hardly new to the sport and I'm keenly aware of how and why management makes decisions - they can all be tracked to increasing profits in some way - no matter the expense or burden to the employee.

 

[barnbwt]

"The statistics show that very few people get injured with this policy so again - I guess you would have to classify this as a win / win situation no matter how personally distasteful the policy may be to people who advocate personal responsibility and self preservation through self defense."
The problem though is that the win/win has impacts beyond the immediate situation; i.e. training out the self-defense response at work spills over outside that and you have a defenseless society that requires ever more oversight.

Put it this way; my plant is a gun free zone, upon leaving I drive about two hundred yards and then it's a steady string of schools until I arrive at my apartment --almost a continuous strip of gun-free zones until I'm actually in my home (with the 1000ft rule I'm sure they'd overlap everything but my dwelling). It's just every individual location looking out for their own interest (absent the gun free schools laws, they'd doubtless have 30-06 signs banning guns) which is admirable. But the aggregate effect is a prohibition on the bearing of arms over 90% of the territory I travel between home and work (yes, in my car I'm golden, but not if I'm jogging I don't think)

If every business can ban guns freely (and get insurance or monetary benefits) they will, and then your 2nd Amendment is subverted. Wah, waahhh... So why not eliminate the profit motive by eliminating the potential liability? At that point it really comes down to whether the owner thinks the presence of guns (which again, it must be stated, do not equate to reflexively engaging a robber in combat every time) will result in lives lost or saved, with no other skin of his in the game; in such a zero-sum environment, it actually is possible for moral/ethical choices to be made on their moral merits alone.

TCB

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

The 'REAL reason' is probably not insurance.

For the companies I worked for, a LOT of the decisions were made based upon insurance costs. Next, you'll be telling me that changing the medical plans from HMO's and PPO's to health savings accounts wasn't done for insurance cost reasons...

Let me give you an example. About 6-7 years ago, everyone in the company, from the receptionists, and CAD personnel, to the engineers, project managers, and program managers had to take about 25 hours of specific project management courses - on their own time, with no compensation from the company.

Why would you have people who NEVER do project work or manage projects take project management courses? Why? Because the errors and omissions underwriter presented a program to management on lowering errors and omissions insurance costs.

A big part of lowering the costs was having everyone in the company trained on a specific project management methodology with new steps, procedures, etc. Training everyone ensured that basic project management was done a specific way which lowered project risk, which in turn, lowered errors and omissions underwriting costs.

You can find all of this out by asking questions during phone calls with specific upper management people who will give you the most interesting information if you gently slip the questions into a conversation in an oblique, casual manner.

 

[Agsalaska]

Well Buckhorn, I was expecting that response. I have been around my fair share of leadership teams at different companies. Now, granted, my entire career has been spent in retail, a much different world than engineering. I can't speak for yours, but I wouldn't say I am naive and lucky. I would say you are just unlucky with a bad perspective. But this argument is most certainly out of place here so I will leave it at that.

 

[Agsalaska]

"The statistics show that very few people get injured with this policy so again - I guess you would have to classify this as a win / win situation no matter how personally distasteful the policy may be to people who advocate personal responsibility and self preservation through self defense."
The problem though is that the win/win has impacts beyond the immediate situation; i.e. training out the self-defense response at work spills over outside that and you have a defenseless society that requires ever more oversight.

Put it this way; my plant is a gun free zone, upon leaving I drive about two hundred yards and then it's a steady string of schools until I arrive at my apartment --almost a continuous strip of gun-free zones until I'm actually in my home (with the 1000ft rule I'm sure they'd overlap everything but my dwelling). It's just every individual location looking out for their own interest (absent the gun free schools laws, they'd doubtless have 30-06 signs banning guns) which is admirable. But the aggregate effect is a prohibition on the bearing of arms over 90% of the territory I travel between home and work (yes, in my car I'm golden, but not if I'm jogging I don't think)

If every business can ban guns freely (and get insurance or monetary benefits) they will, and then your 2nd Amendment is subverted. Wah, waahhh... So why not eliminate the profit motive by eliminating the potential liability? At that point it really comes down to whether the owner thinks the presence of guns (which again, it must be stated, do not equate to reflexively engaging a robber in combat every time) will result in lives lost or saved, with no other skin of his in the game; in such a zero-sum environment, it actually is possible for moral/ethical choices to be made on their moral merits alone.

TCB

If every business can ban guns freely (and get insurance or monetary benefits) they will, and then your 2nd Amendment is subverted. Wah, waahhh... So why not eliminate the profit motive by eliminating the potential liability? At that point it really comes down to whether the owner thinks the presence of guns (which again, it must be stated, do not equate to reflexively engaging a robber in combat every time) will result in lives lost or saved, with no other skin of his in the game; in such a zero-sum environment, it actually is possible for moral/ethical choices to be made on their moral merits alone.

Because that doesn't change the fact that it makes it less safe. Despite Buckhorn's rant against management that actually matters. A lot. At least in my retail world.

 

[barnbwt]

Absent any other consideration, freedom is generally less safe, and our whole system was based on accepting and dealing with this fact. The whole 'benevolentish dictator' thing lies outside our system, but legally within the purview of private business --doesn't make it right

TCB

 

[Agsalaska]

Absent any other consideration, freedom is generally less safe, and our whole system was based on accepting and dealing with this fact. The whole 'benevolentish dictator' thing lies outside our system, but legally within the purview of private business --doesn't make it right

TCB

It is wrong to make decisions regarding thousands of employees that will make them safer? I disagree with that.

 

[zxcvbob]

Are they really trying to make the employees safer? (from real or imagined danger) Or are they trying to make the company safer? (from real or imagined financial liability)

 

[Agsalaska]

Are they really trying to make the employees safer? (from real or imagined danger) Or are they trying to make the company safer? (from real or imagined financial liability)

The decision is primarily based on employee safety(I get a lot of people are also going to disagree with that). It is also not imagined danger. it is real danger. A byproduct of a safer work environment is decrease liabilities(also real liabilities). Another byproduct is also a more productive workforce, happier customers, and increased profits.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It is wrong to make decisions regarding thousands of employees that will make them safer?

Very possibly, yes. You are entirely entitled to make these decisions on behalf of your employer. You are not entitled to make them 'for the good of the lowly masses.' And that is what you are trying to convince us you are doing. And you are disingenuously substituting 'will' for 'may' in your sentence above, which I think you'll admit, if you know anything about probability and actuarial issues, as you claim to.

You're obviously very good at manipulating people with beneficent sounding arguments. We feel for you, with the weight of thousands of employees on your personal shoulders. But perhaps you've heard the aphorism "Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining."?

You seem to think you're speaking to a bunch of unruly children who've never held a job before. Enough with the paternalistic condescension. It's not that buckhorn cortez has been in a job that's an outlier. It's not that you are naïve and/or lucky. You're simply full of it, which is readily apparent to anyone who's worked in a large company before.

I'm completely untroubled by your authority to circumscribe the rights of others in the workplace as a business decision. But your obfuscation of the reasons behind these policies is offensive. And it speaks to a deep insecurity about these policies, if they need to sold in such an untruthful manner.

What is it you're so afraid of?

 

[LemmyCaution]

To add to the anecdotal evidence-

I worked for a small company once. The employee handbook (which for mysterious reasons can only be checked out from the owner and read in the company conference room, then returned to the owner when finished) contains a standard boilerplate 'No Weapons' policy. On the wall of the Project Management office was a photo of one of the employees with a big smile on her face. She's standing in the Project Management office, and holding the company owner's AR15 with a magazine inserted. Years back the owner called me into his office. I thought I was in trouble. Instead, he said "I want these to go to a good home," opened his desk drawer, and pulled out a S&W Model 36 and a more or less brand new Model 19-4. I asked if he was sure. He said, "Yes. I figure you will take better care of them than my kids. You can do what you will with them, but if you sell them, I'd appreciate you giving me 50%."

Best bonus I ever got.

The point being that the policy had everything to do with satisfying underwriters and nothing to do with the owner's concern for employee safety. Which should be pretty much obvious.

 

[steelerdude99]

The decision is primarily based on employee safety(I get a lot of people are also going to disagree with that). It is also not imagined danger. it is real danger. A byproduct of a safer work environment is decrease liabilities(also real liabilities). Another byproduct is also a more productive workforce, happier customers, and increased profits.

Like zxcvbob said, real or imagined financial liability is more of a motive (if not the primary motive). Just as police don't have a duty to protect citizens, it was recently ruled through an appeal of the original civil suit's loss that Virginia Tech didn't have a duty to protect it's student body in the 2007 shooting. So, why would a corporation "have a duty" that's higher than profits to protect its employees outside of what it considers key players (CEO, CFO and perhaps board of directors)?

chuck

 

[HexHead]

I don't believe insurance companies have anything to do with it, beyond being an excuse. I've never seen a question about guns on an insurance application.

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

So, would the opinions expressed on this forum actually carry sufficient weight to influence insurance companies' policies? Or what is your point?