Need some feedback on Corp. CCW policy.

[Atticus]

The message below was sent to all employees this week. I strongly object to the the second sentence (among other things). I realize that this is private property and they have the right to set the rules, and that I have the right to follow them, or seek employment elsewhere- but I STRONGLY object to what they are implying in the second sentence. I would like to reply to HR on this matter- in a calm and intelligent manner.- and would appreciate some feedback/suggestions from those on this board who are far better at word crafting than I.
I also object to the "no storage of weapons on the property, i.e. no weapons in your car, which effectively disarms employees for the entire day -making them vulnerable on the trip to and from work, and anywhere in between.

I will leave the company name out- for now. Ideas?



"Weapons Prohibited on ***** Property: The State of Ohio soon will enact a law allowing citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. However, ***** Laboratories is committed to maintaining an environment that is safe and free of violence for our employees and visitors. Therefore, the wearing, transporting, storage, presence or use of weapons on company property at any time is strictly prohibited. Weapons are defined as, but are not limited to, handguns, firearms, explosives, ammunition, and knives. Any employee who violates this policy is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Should you be aware of any person who is suspected of bringing a weapon onto ***** property, please contact security at 000-0000. We appreciate your cooperation in keeping our premises safe and violence free. "

 

[Rickstir]

Your response should be well thought out. Does the company often change policy once something like this meets with dissatisfaction from the employees? Do you know how many employees feel the same way you do?Do you have locations in other CCW states?

I am sure that somewhere there will be information on work-place violence in shall issue states. I am also sure there is ample information on violent acts committed on company properties where the same written prohibition was in place (even honored security guards). There was an incident in Jefferson City, MO last year but I can't remember the name of the company. The lawsuits are still pending.

I would at a minimum advise them of instructions left with loved ones of what litigation to engage in if something were to happen to you. Sorry I couldn't site examples directly but I am sure someone will be along shortly with some. I am in the same boat as you. I work for a small liberal arts college where they take the word liberal seriously

 

[sturmruger]

I would just keep a gun under the seat. Unless the regularly search employees cars you should be fine.

 

[Mr. Mysterious]

Here is the catch 22...

1) It is private property and they can do whatever they like.

2) No anti-weapons policy will prevent a work place shooting. If you are going to turn your office into a shooting range do you really care if you have a job the following Monday?

3) These anti-weapon policies are done to appease the anti-gun people.

4) It is done to cover the companies a**.

5) Many companies ban weapons up to and including knives (like my employeer). YET, they give every employee a box cutter!? Needless to say the effectiveness of a box cutter has been illustrated...but let me forget to take my CRKT M16 out of my pocket and I'll be looking for a new job.

So pretty much you have no recourse in this situation...its a sad situation.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Cite the Ohio CCW statute which give immunity to employers who do NOT prohibit firearms, but provides no such protection from liability to those who do.

In Ohio it is an attitute problem. We have been without CCW (or open cary) for so many generations. The sheep just can't imagine life any other way. These same sheep think nothing of traveling to PA or IN where CCW requires NO training or to KY, MI, or WV where there has been CCW for many years now.

 

[AJ Dual]

I would definiately NOT respond personally.

It could be a career killer. If you're hell bent on informing HR of your displeasure, do so anonymously, or through a proxy like one of the pro-carry Ohio organizations, or a letter written by a pro-RKBA attorney.

I'm sure there has to be authoritative discussion somewhere on whether or not Ohio's CCW law leaves any room for employer liability should an unarmed CCW holder be hurt or killed in the commission of a crime on company property. If there's any leeway for a suit, I'd simply state that if you or others who will receive CCW's are ever hurt or killed by a trespasser or another employee going nuts, you have instructions left with your estate to sue the company.

Your company has made this decision on what they perceive to be logical liability mitigation, probably in conjunction with their insurer. The only effective argument is to get them to see bigger liability in not allowing CCW. (Perceived) whining about your "rights" will go nowhere, not because your employer is necessarily biased, but because that's not how these decisions are ultimately made.

The original text of the WI CCW statute that failed by one vote on veto override last winter was excellent, it actually spelled out employer liability for banning otherwise legal CCW! Unfortunately, I don't think it was ever seriously considered as a viable portion of the bill, even by the authors, as it was probably intended as a "throw away" bargaining chip to get moderates on board. The final version of the bill did however did have wording overriding any company code on car storage of a CCW in the company lot, or carry on company business if it was in your personal car.

 

[hso]

You may want to respond by pointing out that the CCW requirements for Ohio require training, testing, and a background check ensuring that holders of Ohio CCW have been given a clearance. As such they may want to ammend the policy to exempt CCW holders from this policy.

 

[AJ Dual]

You may want to respond by pointing out that the CCW requirements for Ohio require training, testing, and a background check ensuring that holders of Ohio CCW have been given a clearance. As such they may want to ammend the policy to exempt CCW holders from this policy.

Too late, they allready specifically prohibited CCW licensees in the policy, and the passage of CCW is why they even bothered to ammend and restate the policy in the first place. Telling them about the training, background check, and all the "good guy" CCW stats from other states will do nothing.

Making a convincing case on twisting the liability concerns 180° on an employer in favor of allowing licensed CCW is the only thing that will have a chance of working. Even then it will probably only serve to make them sweat it for a bit, but won't change their minds.

The only thing that will do so is the first high profile lawsuit, with a substantial award to an injured, or dead CCW holder's estate who was disarmed by his or her compliance with company policy as a condition of employment.

 

[SteveS]

4) It is done to cover the companies a**.

We all know that signs won't stop any illegal act, but what would happen if a company posted a sign that said "NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS"? If someone came in and went on a shooting spree, the company could say they had posted a warning. This way, law abiding people could still carry.

 

[jamesraykenney]

You are not going to believe this!

Where I work(Texas Department of Human Services,) we got an e-mail stating that the state had passed a law stating that no State service could prohibit carry(with a permit,) BUT that did not overrule the WORK RULE prohibiting carry by EMPLOYEES!!!

SO...Our clients can come in armed, but WE can not

 

[TimRB]

I'm with AJ. If you make an issue of this, you will be viewed with suspicion for the rest of your time at this company. I'm sure we all are aware that managers know how to play games with "performance reviews".

If you do make an issue of it, be certain you do not violate their policy until it is resolved. I don't know if your company is like this, but some companies believe they have the right to search you and maybe your car while on their property. I'm not sure I buy that, but they would certainly fire you if they legally or illegally searched you and found a gun. At a minimum you would have to go to court to get your job back.

Tim

 

[Trebor]

Don't complain or even discuss the policy with your boss, HR, or your co-workers. You aren't going to change their mind, so complaining will do you no good. All you'll do is set yourself up for carefull attention, including the possibility of random searches, once the policy goes into effect.

Do NOT violate the law, but in most cases, company policy does not have the force of law and violation of company policy will only lead to possible termination of employment, not criminal charges.

My advice? If you complain now, you'll be giving up any chance you have of carrying at work in the future, even if it's against the policy. If you ever do decide to carry, pick the absolute most discreet carry method you can find and don't even say a word about it to anyone.

 

[George S.]

While states have laws that allow their citizens to own, possess, and carry weapons either as open carry or concealed with the proper license, a private company makes their own "laws" as it relates to their property or how their business is run or how the employees are to act. That could even include how employees dress, talk, where they can and cannot go on the premises and even simple things like working hours, lunch and breaks. For many years, IBM required their male employees to wear a white shirt with a dark tie and a dark business suit. No options, that was the way it was.

A business may require employees to sign a document that requires them to abide by the rules and regulations of that business as a condition of employment. If you have done so, or if the business hired you with the understanding that you are required to obey their rules, breaking any of the rules may be cause for any type of disiplinary action the business deems necessary.

Unless you want to risk disiplinary action or even the possibility of termination, you may have to stop carrying on the property or maybe even having a weapon in the car. Some businesses will even require you to allow them to search your vehicle when on their property. If it's in an condition of employment agreement, it will probably stand up in court.

This is a tough decision to have to make. Your longevity with the company is a factor as well as what the current job market is in case you are terminated or want to seek another employer. Good Luck!!

 

[obiwan1]

It's done for liability reasons. Your safety has very little to do with it. Someone could suggest the liability factor if an incident happens and you were forbidden the means to protecy yourself. That indicates that they take TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for your safety anywhere on company property.

...............and Smart Carry seems like a logical choice...................

 

[Jay Kominek]

you could maybe retain a lawyer to talk to them on your behalf, without disclosing who you are. that way, they know somebody is serious, but they can't hold it against you. perhaps the lawyer could even draft up nice legalese instructions to your estate on your behalf, and mention that his firm has already signed a contract saying they'll take the case against the company if you're injured or killed because you were deprived of your legitimate self defense tool(s). (assuming, of course, that you can find a lawyer who'd do so.)
once they know they'll get sued for plan B, they might be a whole lot happier going to plan A, where getting sued is only a possibility, not a certainty. (or they might go to a more reasonable plan C.)

 

[AJ Dual]

I certainly agree that a company does indeed have the right to set any and all policies that they see fit, but only so long as they do not compromise the safety of the workers, or abridge human rights.

An employer cannot write an employee policy that forbids the use of seat belts while driving on company business, for instance. They can't write a policy forbidding employees touch or use a fire extinguisher either. Convenience stores and gas stations usually have written policies instructing employees to comply with robbers, and this is in line with most U.S. states that do not allow deadly force, much less much any force, to protect mere property. Even then, they still can’t compel their cashiers to submit to violent attack on their own person. And AFAIK, you can't enter into an employment contract that abridges basic human rights, even if the employee agrees to it. You can't sell yourself as a slave to a corporation, for instance.

A CCW is a safety preserving item and action in the same vein, and RKBA privilege/right arguments aside, the state issued CCW is acknowledgment of use and carry of a device, i.e. a firearm, to enhance one's personal safety. On moral grounds, self-defense is also a basic human right.

My personal opinion is that an employer does not have the right to bar legal CCW. And pragmatically there's no point since in most places, little if nothing is done to disarm illegal CCW, other than places like airports, courthouses, and jails.

I feel they'd be within their rights to fire you for brandishing inappropriately, or if they discover your "CCW" is actually a bottle of nitroglycerine, or a tube of cyanide gas that could hurt everyone around you etc. However, a properly secured and concealed firearm of modern design is inert and safe. I'd argue that if the CCW does not leave your clothing, it is not interacting with the work environment, unless you work in a particular circumstance where it will due to the nature of the job, such as an MRI machine and it's magnets.

The analogy I use it would be as if your boss hates fish, and fires you for coming back from lunch with Long John Silver's in your belly, and you did not otherwise smell of fish, have fish on your face or hands, or talk about the fish you ate. Now if you walk into your boss’s office, and willfully stick your fingers down your throat and vomit fish all over your boss’s desk for no good reason, I'd expect you to be fired post-haste. I feel CCW is the same.

 

[bogie]

I would reply, stating that you are upset at being portrayed as being possibly unsafe and violent, and that by qualifying for the permit, you have proven that you're both safe and nonviolent. You feel insulted, not angry, and you don't understand why they're taking this attitude.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

I think you are unlikely to change their minds, and certain to cast suspicion on yourself if you try.

I carried a full-size auto in a SmartCarry to my posted workplace every day for eight months. No one was ever the wiser.

Unless your company institutes the practice of very intimate pat-downs, I think you'll be fine.

Then, if you want to start changing minds, do it through a third party or anonymously.

[Evil thought: Secure a complete company email address list. Write a calm, reasoned letter about why the current policy is a bad idea, and asking the company leadership why they want the law-abiding employees to be less safe and than criminals. Point out all the workplace shootings that didn't involve CCW employees -- and that went on longer than necessary because no CCW employee was available to stop them.

Send the letter, anonymously, to the whole darned company, demanding that the leadership justify their unjustifiable ban.

Let me know if you need help with the anonymous send.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Prohibiting objects doesn't prohibit violence.

If this laboratory is a chemical plant of some kind, I'll bet there are all kinds of nasties laying around everywhere (flammables, toxic substances etc.)

So if a person wants to do violence prohibiting guns wouldn't stop them if they had a match in their pocket.

If this is the case that might be the discussion to have with HR - since they are concerned about violence and violence has to do with people, what are they doing to make sure the people aren't violent (counseling, anger management classes etc.) and if they aren't effectively doing that then I suggest strip searches for everyone so that every match and toenail clipper could be confiscated.

And even if they do that . . . . you could still find something to harm a lot of people in a chemical plant. Things worse than guns.

Which brings it back to people . . . . . . you may also want to ask if they are guaranteeing your safety.

 

[raz-0]

well if I were to make an inquiry, I'd probably start by working the part where they make the statement about providing a safe and violence free working environment. I would ask what measures they are implimenting to assure your safety during the work day as they are assuming liability for your safety.

Although concealed carry is a myth in my state, I've had similar wording thrown at me by an employer that included even pepper spray. The company would regularly have people working late, yet didn't provide any security after something like 7:30pm, and shut off all the lights on the property at 9pm. People complained and various things changed.

their policy has some issues if they take the precaustions the average company does (i.e. next to none), and making a sticnk about the level of security (especially if there is any examples of crime to bear it out) shouldn't get you in too much hot water.

however, trying to convicne them that letting you carry a firearm to rectify the situation is likelya losing scenario and best not approached through direct contact with HR.

personally, I'd consider taking a page out of the gun grabbers playbook. List companies prohibiting CCW, the income of any employee whose pay has to be public that is high on the food chain policy wise, and if you can manage it legally, a description of any vehicle registered to them or offered as compensation. basically as much info as is a matter of public record conveniently condensed to make them a target. When the policy makers want concealed carry to be allowed, it'll be allowed.

 

[flatrock]

I'm not a lawyer, but the Ohio Attorney General's concealed carry pamphlet does have some info on this.

http://www.ofccpac.org/files/cc_booklet20040319-72.pdf

The law appears to give employers the right to ban guns on their property, and it looks like it's a 4th degree misdemeanor if you break that part of the law.

I strongly reccomend following the law. Your employeer may not have the right to search you or your car, but I suspect they can fire you for refusing to concent to the search.

The company I work for recently got purchased by a larger company, and I'm currently not sure what the policy is. Fortunately my boss is a gun owner, and someone I can trust. I may ask him to inquire about the policy, however I don't want to cause problems for him either, so I may have to take a more round about approach. I can always create an anonymous email and send questions to HR, and see if I get a response. However, if they don't post any signs, I'm more likely to keep quiet and not bring it to their attention that they could post signs.

 

[Standing Wolf]

***** Laboratories is committed to maintaining an environment that is safe and free of violence for our employees and visitors.

In plain English, that's a lie. If your company were serious about maintaining a safe environment, it would respect the right of law-abiding American citizens to defend their lives and property. Disarming the law-abiding merely makes it easier for criminals to expand their predations.

 

[Waitone]

--Complain and you are marked. Your choice.

--Consult the law and compare it to your company's policy. Companies have been know to draw lines with big, fat Sharpies. Let the law guide you decision.

--Spend a few bucks consulting a lawyer to determine legal reality. The law is only one and often minor factor.

--Park across the street

 

[Eskimo Jim]

Waitone made some very good points.

How about searching for newspaper articles about how people at work were in jeopardy because of the CCW ban at work? THe shooting in MA, various McDonalds, the Law school shooting in VA or WV, etc etc.

Maybe a short pursuasive essay to the HR and owner of the company.

-Jim

 

[Correia]

My company has a similar policy. I argued with it, but all it did was cause controversey and get me on HR's crap list.

Ultimately it is up to you whether you choose to ignore the rule or not.