Insurance Company Bias against guns in the workplace.

[silicosys4]

There are businesses that are completely concerned first and foremost with the desires and wants, comfort and safety of those employed within that company.
Most are single employee personal small businesses.
If you want to work for a company that puts what its employees "want" to do over what the numbers say is best for the company, start your own business.
Don't hire somebody though, or you might find yourself making the same policy decisions that others here have had to make.

 

[barnbwt]

"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"
Well now, that's interesting on its face (the area being a Gun Free Zone as enforced by the university) and probably good fodder for the Legal forum. But the same point applies to businesses.

-The business will fight tooth and nail if a victim on their premises is attacked while defenseless and sued the owners on those grounds, even if there is no posted security
-The business will fight tooth and nail to protect its employees/patrons from the supposed liability inherent in having guns around, or from defending themselves

Which is it? Because the two stances circumvent an employee's/patron's attempt to place responsibility onto the business. It sounds more like the goal is to guard the business against any liability whatsoever, justice be damned. Otherwise they'd pick up the tab for security everywhere they disarm patrons, and readily compensate them when they do come to harm through corporate policy.

Which again, is why legal immunity from these grievances would be the best solution for all involved. And it makes sense; all else being equal, it's hardly the business's fault a guy went crazy and shot them up as opposed to the taco joint across the street --unless they did something to demonstrably make themselves a more attractive target. I think the practice would reverse in short order if the NRA started suing every last business which experienced a gun crime despite posted signage( which would be every bit as wrong as when the Brady groups do it). With immunity, the citizens would enjoy the same freedom as they do outside, with no measurable cost to the business*

*Don't claim there is without evidence; there's been none to support the claim on an individual, city, or nation scale --so I will be skeptical of a baseless claim that businesses transmute into a more dangerous setting when a citizen has one lawfully holstered while going about their duties.

"So, would the opinions expressed on this forum actually carry sufficient weight to influence insurance companies' policies?"
LOL

"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)"
Plumbers are expensive; that's why.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Me:
"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"
Agsalaska:
"It is wrong to make decisions regarding thousands of employees that will make them safer? I disagree with that."
I respect your candor. But I find your disagreement disagreeable. Just because you intend to act from benevolence does not change the agency of those you pay or provide service to. Our constitution protects us from the government, but the inalienable rights it accepts as fundamental apply to governance. At some point, your authority over the people on your property ceases, because they are not your property. Unlike true slaveholders, you aren't responsible for them in such a scenario as a robbery/negligent discharge.

We've historically given far, far more latitude in this area to business/private citizens than to official governments in the name of protecting the freedom of the individuals running these establishments --and lo, and behold, freedoms were restricted far beyond what a government could legally get away with (and how convenient for the government permitting this ). The purpose of the Bill of Rights and our form of government at large, was to manage and organize individual and collective interests so they do not come into conflict; a manager forbidding arms simply because he can (or for whatever irrelevant reason) despite what the individual employees feel is appropriate for their situation is a conflict. The employees lose because they are less powerful; the exact outcome our system was put into place to prevent.

Now, if the business involves an MRI in the room and the presence of a firearm will by itself pose a danger, then the RKBA is in legitimate conflict with other basic rights and can be managed (weapon storage, posted guards, etc.) to be amenable to all parties. A simple corporate declaration is not sufficient grounds for justifiably curtailing such a basic right, regardless their stated (and unsupported) reasoning. Especially when immunity can be granted to resolve any fragment of legitimacy to the question.

TCB

 

[Agsalaska]

Lemme, I am sorry you have such a view.

This has been a good thread and I wish you all a good night.

 

[steelerdude99]

"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"

Well now, that's interesting on its face (the area being a Gun Free Zone as enforced by the university) and probably good fodder for the Legal forum. But the same point applies to businesses.

-The business will fight tooth and nail if a victim on their premises is attacked while defenseless and sued the owners on those grounds, even if there is no posted security
-The business will fight tooth and nail to protect its employees/patrons from the supposed liability inherent in having guns around, or from defending themselves

Which is it? Because the two stances circumvent an employee's/patron's attempt to place responsibility onto the business. It sounds more like the goal is to guard the business against any liability whatsoever, justice be damned. Otherwise they'd pick up the tab for security everywhere they disarm patrons, and readily compensate them when they do come to harm through corporate policy.

Which again, is why legal immunity from these grievances would be the best solution for all involved. ...

I wrote about VA Tech as an instance where the University wants responsibility (having the assigned duty) to protect students, but not accountability (who to blame if there is a problem). This has a parallel in corporate world where the corporation wants to keep anyone from arming themselves, but they want to not get sued because of any action an employee took. As of now, a corporation can still be sued. But a University police department can no longer be held to account for not keeping students safe.

I would love to see more "legal immunity" for legitimate self defense. Said differently, the one who defends themselves must have "clean hands". "Clean hands" is not being in the middle of a drug deal gone bad.

chuck

barnbwt: To keep the original text separate from yours, did you know it's easy to automatically quote a message you are responding to by clicking the little bottom right of each post? Then there is a "quote message in reply" that needs checked and then hit "Go advanced" which brings up the editor w/ the original message quoted.

 

[Tirod]

One of the significant changes we have had in society from the days when the Constitution was written, to now, is that the average person no longer works on his own property for himself.

Then, over 80% agricultural, and if you owned a business, you and your family worked it. Employees, clerks, and paid craftsmen were rare. I saw the end of that era when I went thru my fathers paperwork in restoring an old Victorian house. Many of the shop tickets I showed to my employer were former employees of that millwork shop. They could tell me when they were employed, and what happened to their business, ie when it caught fire and burned to the ground (sawdust being an obvious fire hazard they consistently ignored.) Some I remembered, too.

Now? Very few Americans work for themselves. They work for someone else. That massive change in employment, from family farms, to moving to the cities, was one phase. When chains and franchises exploded over the last 30 years, the family stores went out of business because the larger organizations offered a structured, less expensive cost thru larger quantity ordering, and benefits thru group pools of participants.

Now we all work for someone else, being on your own is considered exciting and rare. Since we work on someone else's property, it's their rules, not ours. And collectively, the owners are doing exactly the same thing that they always have - calculate things to the last farthing and make decisions based on profit.

It's cheaper to deny us the right to carry on their premises because changing the cause of that liability is too expensive.

I'm reminded of some posts about production line workers equipped one and all with knives for their tasks. I am aware of one such facility where convicts were employed on supervised work release during the day. Management allowed and encouraged the open carry of firearms by line supervisors.

Management can and does decide to make exceptions when a larger liability exists. One remarked the bill for armed security services was costly. I dispute that - it is likely that if the employee was on his payroll, the costs would be even higher. That's why he farmed out the contract.

I worked that sort of job in the day, security gets paid far less than the employees, and it's all written off as expense with no benefits to add to overhead. I later worked in accounting and paid the bill. Hiring out was the rage, it's cheaper overall. Still is. Now most retailers only hire part timers with no benefits.

Follow the money, right?

What I do see is a growing trend for Americans to start up their own "one man" shop - and I believe the ACA will actually help that. If employee costs are the major problem dragging down profits, and companies are doing everything they can to trim their numbers, then it follows that more people will need to find some way to make money.

In that light, there will be more opportunities to carry than ever. We just may be seeing the pendulum starting to swing back.

 

[Sam1911]

One of the significant changes we have had in society from the days when the Constitution was written, to now, is that the average person no longer works on his own property for himself.

To be precise, though, that was only true in the colonial frontiers of empires, such as the American colonies. Most average people of European or Asian stock, at least, did not own the land they worked, at all. Settling on land and being able to acquire ownership of it was quite a novel thing for emigres and a major draw.

and if you owned a business, you and your family worked it. Employees, clerks, and paid craftsmen were rare.

More so then than now? Surely, but I wouldn't call it rare. Every shop had its apprentices and journeymen and many did have employed laborers and craftsmen. I don't know statistics for this, but aside from the small shops and medium-sized factories that employed workers, there were enormous (for the time) corporations that spanned the "civilized" () world, and they had thousands of employees.

 

[barnbwt]

I wrote about VA Tech as an instance where the University wants responsibility (having the assigned duty) to protect students, but not accountability (who to blame if there is a problem).

Responsibility = Power + Accountability. The authority in question simply wants the benefits of power with none of drawbacks (accountability) . Irresponsibility is often more profitable, at least in the short run, so I can hardly blame them; that's what our system is for, though.

One of the significant changes we have had in society from the days when the Constitution was written, to now, is that the average person no longer works on his own property for himself.

Indeed, we are more like England or Ireland where centuries of inheritance have parceled out all land into tiny pittances or massive conglomerates maintained by trusts. The question is, should we embrace the corruption of the human condition that the monarchs/oligarchs there have slowly poisoned their people with, or stick to our principles (and our guns) even when it gets difficult --especially when it gets difficult? What is also forgotten is that even business owners like many of the Founders were, were intensely social despite what I assume you meant to infer about people who work their own land. Social interaction is not inversely related to the amount of protection a person's freedoms require; it is exponentially related (so strongly so, that it may be impossible for any system to protect the individual adequately in our most crowded areas )

America is only going to get more crowded and industrialized, so we should make the choice now whether we will be chattel to be herded, or something more evolved. We actually already did, before 1776 (lots of famous quotes about increasing urbanization during the Industrial Revolution being the death-knell for a virtuous society) but we have to continually re-examine the question

Of course such an undertaking is hard, and many will fail in their responsibilities as free men, but this is true of all climbs up slippery slopes. Back sliding is always the easiest route, but the least productive. Placing enormous faith in our free citizens --even those in cities-- is flatly what made this nation different than the other British colonies after their eventual independence. Strip that away, even incrementally, and you end up with poorer systems every time.

TCB

 

[hardheart]

How can these policies be acceptable and applicable to a workplace and not seen as just as suitable outside the workplace? If management can deem it necessary to restrict access to firearms and require compliance with criminals based on statistics that demonstrate a much lower incidence of injury and death, then could any supporter of such say that it would be inappropriate to protect a subdivision surrounding a business in the same manner? Or the entirety of the city that the business operates in? Or the state, perhaps even the nation? If the concern is for the safety of the employee, should it stop when they are off the clock? Should there not be support to increase their safety when on the roadways, at other businesses, or at home? If it is better to prevent the presence of guns in a car when in the parking lot, is it not better to prevent their presence anywhere a car may be? It cannot be in the car as they leave the house for work, it cannot be in it on the commute, it cannot be in it while working, and it cannot be in it for the drive home. This is because they are always safer without the gun in the car. Much the same, they are always safer at the building they work in when without a gun. It would mean that they would also be safer in the building they shop in, the building they eat in, the building they sleep in. Companies will help employees off the clock with other services they feel makes them happier and healthier, so it would make sense to support other measures that they find increases the safety of their employees. And the manager at a business should have no more concern for his employees than a government official does for his constituency. For he not only has to worry about the health and safety of trained working adults in a relatively controlled and properly laid out indoor environment, he must worry about their children in school, their elderly parents in homes, their friends out in the public space, the traveled roadways and the cluttered eateries and shopping centers.

In other words, I really have a hard time seeing how someone who thinks decision makers at a business have the right to restrict access to firearms due to demonstrated improvements in public safety could then say anything other than that when you switch it from a corporate board to a town legislature. If you really feel people are safer, that the heuristics used by insurers are appropriate and correct, that the possibilities of ND are not worth the individual freedoms, and that it is always better to follow the instructions of the criminal, then there ought to be some consistency in that viewpoint. I don't agree with it at all, but I could respect it if it were presented as such.

 

[HexHead]

Just as I expected, all this crap about insurance companies influencing businesses to post or not is just that, crap. Both my wife and I have had our P&C licenses for two decades. I've quoted commercial insurance in the past, and my wife has been an agent with small commercial accounts. The company she works for is one of the top five brokerages in the country. I asked her to look into this as we'd never seen a "gun" question on an app or been asked about it by an underwriter. She checked with a colleague today with about fifty years of commercial insurance experience at various different levels.

"Whether a company posts or not doesn't affect their rates one way or another". He went on to say insurance companies don't want to be dragged into lawsuits for telling a company whether they can post or not should someone get shot and the company didn't take steps to protect them.

Any business that tells you they post because of insurance is lying to you. They just don't want to be the "bad guy".

 

[Double Naught Spy]

When in reality, more incidents occur on properties that are posted AGAINST carry.

Is this like the claim that most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, or is it a made up claim? I would like to see the data that shows this to be as claimed. Who actually keeps this dichotomy data of businesses posted versus business not posted.

 

[WestKentucky]

Hexhead, although I don't doubt your experience, it differs from mine. When we last quoted insurance we had long in depth conversations about the ins and outs of the policies and how it would be written. Although the insurance company certainly did not advise us to post the rules it came to a point where we got to see that the numbers helped to lead us towards posting. The agent also made it quite clear that kentuckys current stance is that a carry permit gives the holder a open priviledge to carry and as such to and from work were protected by the permit. This means that the weapon must go safe transport rules while not attended and on the person of the carry permit holder. Long story short the locked vehicle is employee property and is also protected as long as it is locked while unattended therefore the state protects the employees priviledge to have a gun in the car for the commute to/from work.

 

[barnbwt]

"He went on to say insurance companies don't want to be dragged into lawsuits for telling a company whether they can post or not should someone get shot and the company didn't take steps to protect them."
Well, then perhaps the insurance companies should inform their customers that choosing an official stance on guns on the premises likewise opens them to liability...Obviously something has owners nearly everywhere convinced there is a benefit to posting, more so the larger and more bureaucratic the organization. Most likely they post because they can, and it is an additional exercise of authority over their employees (management runs amok the same way government does when unchecked)

TCB

 

[HexHead]

"He went on to say insurance companies don't want to be dragged into lawsuits for telling a company whether they can post or not should someone get shot and the company didn't take steps to protect them."
Well, then perhaps the insurance companies should inform their customers that choosing an official stance on guns on the premises likewise opens them to liability...Obviously something has owners nearly everywhere convinced there is a benefit to posting, more so the larger and more bureaucratic the organization. Most likely they post because they can, and it is an additional exercise of authority over their employees (management runs amok the same way government does when unchecked)

TCB

They may be doing it not to scare soccer moms, because of lawyers advice, HR department policies or just their own biases. In any event, it's not because of their insurance company's insistence or pricing. Everyone like to blame insurance companies and use them as the scape goat. It's easier that way.

Insurance companies all use a standardized ISO application, the ACCORD app. There are no gun questions on the application that underwriting and pricing is done from. According to my wife's source, there isn't enough data regarding gun use for insurance companies to base pricing on. Insurance companies pricing is all based on statistics and loss experience, not feelings.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, then perhaps the insurance companies should inform their customers that choosing an official stance on guns on the premises likewise opens them to liability...Obviously something has owners nearly everywhere convinced there is a benefit to posting, more so the larger and more bureaucratic the organization. Most likely they post because they can, and it is an additional exercise of authority over their employees (management runs amok the same way government does when unchecked)

As noted way back on page 1, insurance companies weigh risks very effectively. The $ risk is MUCH greater to the client and themselves for allowing something potentially harmful to occur than something that happens illegally.

Somebody is going to have to remind me again. Just how many successful (and unsuccessful) lawsuits have been filed by victims against businesses and/or employers because they were not allowed to carry guns? Is the number still zero? If not, then a list of the salient cases would be nice. Otherwise, the liability risk seems exceptionally low.

The bottom line here is that the insurance companies make their business out of understanding risks and they make their insurance assessments based on risk analysis and set premiums accordingly. That is how they stay in business.

 

[barnbwt]

HexHead:
"They may be doing it not to scare soccer moms, because of lawyers advice, HR department policies or just their own biases."
Alright, let's start a thread "Legal Consultant Bias Against Guns in the Workplace," just remember that insurance companies and businesses both employ a lot of those themselves, so the question isn't changed much. It would be interesting to determine if this sentiment leaks out of legal rather than actuarial channels (I'm sure we'll never know since both are highly classified internally, right?)

DoubleNaughtSpy:
"As noted way back on page 1, insurance companies weigh risks very effectively. The $ risk is MUCH greater to the client and themselves for allowing something potentially harmful to occur than something that happens illegally."
Wait, wait, wait. Allowing a person to lawfully and peacefully carry concealed (or open) is potentially harmful, but not posting armed response at a gun-free zone is not? Because both a robber and negligent discharge are illegal, if you recall. So are lunatic gunmen. The real difference is the owners know they'd get sued (where they get this idea, I think would be quite informative) for allowing guns if something bad happened with them, while there is no fear of retribution if a gunman attacks their disarmed customers. I'm not debating the fact of that, just the logic underpinning it; seems the same liability/lack thereof should be active in either case.

The difference is the Brady organization was famous for suing businesses where gun crimes occurred that didn't have ban signs on the door. The Brady org is dead now, so why still the CYA'ing? Maybe it really is all the lawyers pushing this, either because of professional/educational bias, or because it's simply easy money to ban the guy who "allowed" something as opposed to the guy who did nothing and must then be proven to have had an obligation to act.

Which is again why there are two options; have the NRA start an arms race with the anti's and start suing school districts, businesses, and municipalities that forbid the lawful bearing of arms...or pass immunity legislation that returns the choice to individuals (I suppose this would fall under generic "tort reform" wouldn't it?)

"When in reality, more incidents occur on properties that are posted AGAINST carry."
May well be true since there are often more posted locations than not (especially large/popular locations like grocers). It's certainly the case with most box retailers here in Texas.

TCB

 

[HexHead]

HexHead:
"They may be doing it not to scare soccer moms, because of lawyers advice, HR department policies or just their own biases."
Alright, let's start a thread "Legal Consultant Bias Against Guns in the Workplace," just remember that insurance companies and businesses both employ a lot of those themselves, so the question isn't changed much. It would be interesting to determine if this sentiment leaks out of legal rather than actuarial channels (I'm sure we'll never know since both are highly classified internally, right?)

DoubleNaughtSpy:
"As noted way back on page 1, insurance companies weigh risks very effectively. The $ risk is MUCH greater to the client and themselves for allowing something potentially harmful to occur than something that happens illegally."
Wait, wait, wait. Allowing a person to lawfully and peacefully carry concealed (or open) is potentially harmful, but not posting armed response at a gun-free zone is not? Because both a robber and negligent discharge are illegal, if you recall. So are lunatic gunmen. The real difference is the owners know they'd get sued (where they get this idea, I think would be quite informative) for allowing guns if something bad happened with them, while there is no fear of retribution if a gunman attacks their disarmed customers. I'm not debating the fact of that, just the logic underpinning it; seems the same liability/lack thereof should be active in either case.

The difference is the Brady organization was famous for suing businesses where gun crimes occurred that didn't have ban signs on the door. The Brady org is dead now, so why still the CYA'ing? Maybe it really is all the lawyers pushing this, either because of professional/educational bias, or because it's simply easy money to ban the guy who "allowed" something as opposed to the guy who did nothing and must then be proven to have had an obligation to act.

Which is again why there are two options; have the NRA start an arms race with the anti's and start suing school districts, businesses, and municipalities that forbid the lawful bearing of arms...or pass immunity legislation that returns the choice to individuals (I suppose this would fall under generic "tort reform" wouldn't it?)

"When in reality, more incidents occur on properties that are posted AGAINST carry."
May well be true since there are often more posted locations than not (especially large/popular locations like grocers). It's certainly the case with most box retailers here in Texas.

TCB

I'm not disagreeing with you on any of this. My point was people that say businesses post because their insurance would cost more or were told to by their insurance company are
ill-informed.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The real difference is the owners know they'd get sued (where they get this idea, I think would be quite informative) for allowing guns if something bad happened with them, while there is no fear of retribution if a gunman attacks their disarmed customers.

Simple allowance or permission can imbue responsibility, but if I am in your store and a gunman comes in and shoots me, you are not responsible for me and hence your liability to me is nil or virtually nil. That is a major obstacle to your argument.

You cannot prove that allowing me to carry a gun would have prevented me getting shot, and therein is the second major obstacle to your argument.

So again I ask, and ask you specifically, how many lawsuits have their been successfully made by victims who sued because they were not allowed to carry where an event took place? If you think there is so much liability to the owner and insurance company, then other folks, especially lawyers, should be all over this. People are hurt in robberies fairly regularly. Where are the lawsuits for all these people who were not allowed to carry?

 

[barnbwt]

My point was precisely that they aren't common, though I am curious why, since "forbidding" something explicitly with a sign is a heck of lot more action on the part of a business owner than abiding by the laws that govern the street outside. That's why I think there probably is an argument to be made that signage is a conscious decision to create a hazardous environment (especially if other protective measures like guards are not present).

There was a time when businesses were not sued for allowing guns on the premises, you know; I understand it was part of the anti-gun movement strategy several decades back to punish businesses that permitted carry on their property (same as they tried to punish gun manufacturers for their products' misuse).

I do also agree that to judges/juries that haven't thought about the topic very hard, that blaming the guy who allowed a gun on his property (but who was in no way responsible for its misuse) is at fault. But that's a pretty flawed argument, when, like I said, the adjacent street gets by without the restriction, and the owner has no control over the actions of his patrons (and limited control over the actions of his employees). It ultimately falls back on peoples' emotional disposition to not like guns being around.

TCB