In addition to the safety aspects, the policy attempts to define company property as including the private property of anyone that comes into the company buildings or enters any company lands. For example, the policy forbids the possession or use of ‘dangerous weapons’ on company property and then proceeds to define company property to include all vehicles that come onto company property. The extension of the usual and normal meaning of “Company Property†is open to abuse and could be interpreted as “malicious purpose†under 2923.126 C(2)(a) and thus negate the immunities provided by law.
interesting. so while your vehicle is on 'company property', it becomes 'property of the company'? wonder if you could file claims with their insurance should something happen to your vehicle. afterall, it is THEIR property while its on THEIR lot, right?
a lot of times the efforts at writing new company policy regarding weapons has to do with insurance. a liability insurance carrier may want to review things such as a companys employee handbook, to see how they have addressed issues like workplace harrassment, consumption of alcoholic beverages/illegal drugs, and whether or not weapons are prohibited.
from the standpoint of the insurance carrier, it reduces risk of having to pay a claim if the employer turns company property into a 'disarmed zone'. they feel that there is a lesser chance of having to pay out for 'wrongful deaths' on those premises.
an insurance carrier can rest assured that wrongful death claims arising BECAUSE every employee is disarmed will be denied, because an employee is under no obligation to keep that job and comply with being disarmed.
the insurance carrier will argue that the employee could have found work elsewhere.
i talked with a guest speaker last winter about it, his presentation was about workplace accidents and how they can be avoided with the help of insurance agents. i asked him how he felt about 'no-weapons' policies and he gave the usual boilerplate answer.
i told him the same things we all say about this kind of thing, how a simple policy wont prevent a disgruntled employee from bringing a weapon and harming others, much like the laws that prohibit criminals from possessing a weapon dont prevent them from obtaining any.
but he went on about how employers can look for 'warning signs' and how 'patterns of violence can be observed', hopefully to lead up to firing the employee before they go on a killing spree.
the next speaker was from OSHA, and he was more on the topic of contractors and keeping their employees safe from slip-and-falls, and whatnot. but he noticed i had a copy of SWAT with me to read between sessions and he starts going on about how much he loves shooting. so it wasnt a total loss.
