A feature common to many "Employer Forbids Weapons" threads is that many employers cite "Insurance Reasons" as the underlying justification for a zero weapons policy. Employers claim that their insurance underwriters require a zero weapons corporate policy in order for the company to qualify for certain premiums. Thus, common sense arguments for allowing guns in the workplace are moot, because it all comes down to dollars and cents. Employers are typically not willing to give up $ to allow their employers to carry weapons at work.
Has anyone considered targeting activism/lobbying actions directly at the insurance carriers? Could there even be financial incentives for insurance copmanies to offer premium discounts to customers who do not prohibit firearms?
The shooting at the NASA corporate building jumps to mind. Is NASA, or their insurance carrier (if any), liable to civil suits brought by employees against the company? Could the carrier limit its liability by not offering incentives to companies who strip their employees of the ability to effectively defend themselves?
Just curious whether or not other members feel that targeting the insurance companies might be a worthy cause.
Has anyone considered targeting activism/lobbying actions directly at the insurance carriers? Could there even be financial incentives for insurance copmanies to offer premium discounts to customers who do not prohibit firearms?
The shooting at the NASA corporate building jumps to mind. Is NASA, or their insurance carrier (if any), liable to civil suits brought by employees against the company? Could the carrier limit its liability by not offering incentives to companies who strip their employees of the ability to effectively defend themselves?
Just curious whether or not other members feel that targeting the insurance companies might be a worthy cause.