Employer gun free zones

[Sniper56]

gun restrictions at work

I retired a while back so it does not matter now. After an active shooter happened I carried w/ccw everyday in spite of the no guns policy. My life was worth more than a letter of sympathy from the management to my wife.























i

 

[yugorpk]

I have gone back and forth about these sorts of policies my entire career. Especially the idea (expressed by several in this thread) that your choice reflects on your honesty and honor.

A few months ago I had an interesting workplace conundrum. Short version is that a recently ex coworker (who at one time reported to me as his manager) began making threats. Threats against many, but most relevantly against people in the group I manage. They weren't specifically against me, but close enough for discomfort.

This of course went up to the CEO of the company I work for, a person who as the ability to authorize exceptions to the corporate weapons policy. He was quite aware of the whole drama.

I went to CEO and said, "I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, I have training, and I think there is a legitimate threat here, but I don't carry at work because I don't want to lose my job."

His response? "You've got to weigh the risk of losing your job against losing your life. I would not obey that policy in your shoes, but that's something you need to decide for yourself..."

So..What ethical obligation do I have to obey a rule that the person responsible for the rule thinks I should break? How does that reflect on my character or honor?

Obviously that's not Herrwalther's situation, and I am not suggesting he base his decisions on my experience, but I don't think what gramps said 60 years ago is necessarily relevant to the sort of work environments common today.

Ed
I'm sure youve worked with enough CEO's directly , as I have, to know that they do not make the rules. In large part they are the figurehead of a company and they have to do the same sort of CYA that the rest of management under him have to do. I look at CEO's as being sort of the like the American President. They have a very minor role in the day to day running of a company for the most part but their word is often seen as gospel. Many times they have much lower power to affect change than you would think they would have.
I was in the same boat a few months ago where I was the "victim" of an office invasion where a crazy homeless former employee wandered in off the street and threw me out of my own office and took over my desk as I watched from outside my office door as he rifled through my desk and made death threats against me while the cops hauled him off. I was in a conference with the senior VP who made an off the cuff remark that I should have been armed or something like that and I came back with "Are you telling me I can keep a gun in my desk" she backed off right away because she didnt want to be the one to come out and say that but given that I know there is no formal policy on the subject I now do what I feel I need to do. Its not a question of honor of all things. Its doing what needs to be done. If I ever have to use my backup plan there is a good chance I might lose my job. So is life. Everyone is in a different situation and some might feel they should do everything their employer tells them because they are afraid of losing their job. I'm not . I could make a few phone calls and have a similar job lined up in a few days.

In your case the CEO told you what he would do and what he thought you should do. Don't look at it as a question "honor". Look at it as a question of practicality. He would love to tell you "Oh sure go ahead" but he is constrained by the same CYA bureaucracy that everyone else in the company is constrained by.

 

[Ed Ames]

Ed
I'm sure youve worked with enough CEO's directly , as I have, to know that they do not make the rules. In large part they are the figurehead of a company and they have to do the same sort of CYA that the rest of management under him have to do.

You are right that they generally don't make this sort of rule. Anti-weapons policies typically come from HR consulting companies hired to minimize the employer's exposure to lawsuits. The reasoning is that if an employee brings a weapon to the workplace, and another employee is injured, the injured employee can sue the workplace for allowing weapons. If the workplace has a policy against weapons, that lawsuit is cut short.

Whatever the limits on CEO power may be, this CEO has the power to make an exception per the rulebook.

Its doing what needs to be done. If I ever have to use my backup plan there is a good chance I might lose my job. So is life.

I agree with this 100%.

I won't get into what I did or didn't do before or after my discussion of the issue with the CEO of my company. But I will say that the answer reinforced my views.

I mentioned honor because some posters were coming pretty close to the line of saying that carry against company policy is dishonorable.

 

[buck460XVR]

Do you, as so many others, fall into the quixotic belief that you're an irresponsible jackarse if you carry a gun where you aren't supposed to, UNLESS you happen to need it and save lives and then you're a hero?

If you can't answer that question with clarity and without dissembling, you need to completely back off your whole moralizing line of argument.

No, the quixotic Jackarse would agree to something and then break that promise as soon as they can. The responsible citizen would not accept a job somewhere they did not feel safe following the rules and move on. They would not need to be dishonest and lie, and they would have shown respect for other's wishes. Simple. What I see here is the same thing I saw on elementary school playgrounds 50 years ago. Folks playing games and then changing or making the rules up as they go. I understood that back then because we are talking about 6-10 year old kids. Apparently some folk's mentality hasn't grown up with their bodies. Don't like the rules, go somewhere else. Show some integrity....instead of trying to tell all of us, rules don't apply to you. Go get that other job since it's so easy, that way you don't have to be a liar and disrespectful. Regardless of what you think, employers do not owe you a job. They offer you one and you either accept it on their terms or you walk away. Again, quite simple. If your life is more important than the job...why take it in the first place? Are you lying to yourself along with the plans to lie to your employer? I'm not the one trying to moralize that breaking the rules is acceptable any time you feel they are not advantageous to you. I'm saying if you make a promise, you man up and stick to it. I'm saying that when you walk onto someone else's property, you play by their rules or you stay home. Simple. You didn't bring the ball, you don't get to make the rules. If all this crap about breaking the rules is perfectly fine, why do we have rules here at THR? Why do Moderators close threads and hand out disciplinary action? Funny how forum mods ask us to respect each other here and then make public posts that we don't owe anyone respect. We used to call that talking outta both sides of your mouth.

 

[Sam1911]

Again, quite simple. If your life is more important than the job...why take it in the first place?

Good HEAVENS! You actually said that AGAIN! That's utterly astonishing. You are the most selfless human being I've ever met! Bravo, sir.



Or maybe you're actually just unemployed? Gotta be one or the other! If your life isn't more important than your job... you're got one HELL of a miserable LIFE!





But more seriously, you just side-stepped my question again, for the THIRD time, with more moralistic smoke screen. I guess that gives me the answer I was looking for... but I'd have thought you'd come up with something as a response in the last week.

 

[Sam1911]

If all this crap about breaking the rules is perfectly fine, why do we have rules here at THR? Why do Moderators close threads and hand out disciplinary action? Funny how forum mods ask us to respect each other here and then make public posts that we don't owe anyone respect. We used to call that talking outta both sides of your mouth.

Easy. What you do in private is YOUR BUSINESS. I don't care if you're secretly an anti-gunner here to steal our secrets. I don't care if you swear a blue streak in Private Messages, or in the "meat world." I don't care if you infringe copyrights, or are insanely impolite. I don't care if you speed or violate gun laws. I care about what is visible, and what visibly, publicly, contradicts the posted rules for our community. What you do that isn't visible here in the open forum isn't any of my business AT ALL.

Not a single one of us has said if you are caught by your employer violating the company policy handbook, they are in the wrong to fire you.

It is a risk you take, knowingly. It is making the best choice each person feels they can, based on their own values and analysis of the competing risk factors. One of those risks is getting fired. So be it.

Live with that risk, or live with other risks. Your choice.

 

[buck460XVR]

Good HEAVENS! You actually said that AGAIN! That's utterly astonishing. You are the most selfless human being I've ever met! Bravo, sir.



Or maybe you're actually just unemployed? Gotta be one or the other! If your life isn't more important than your job... you're got one HELL of a miserable LIFE!

Never said MY job is more important than my life. Just said my job and my integrity is more important than the minuscule threat of death from a threat at work that I can not handle without a firearm. So because I don"t agree with you, I have to be unemployed or have one hell of a miserable life? Funny how folks think they still win by belittling others when their other arguments fail. What a class act!

You read my posts, you saw I'm employed in a place where having a gun on my person is against Federal Law, where, by your indications, I should be dead already. Life is full of risks. If my job was delivering pizza's in the middle of the night in a crime ridden area of town, I too would probably wear a gun all the time. While at work, I feel completely safe without it. But then I don't have those "Mall Ninja" fantasies that so many here have thinking....

if you carry a gun where you aren't supposed to, UNLESS you happen to need it and save lives and then you're a hero?

"Duh......yep I'm going to carry my gun everywhere, even where prohibited so I can save the world and be a hero....yep, yep." This is similar to that elementary school mentality I spoke of earlier. This same guy who dreams he is going to save the world and be hero, probably has more likelihood of shooting his co-worker by mistake, or shooting his boss in the back of the head, when his gun drops outta his pants in the bathroom, than ever becoming a hero. It's because of folks like this that have bosses asking them to keep their guns at home.

Not only am I gainfully employed, but I have been an employer myself in the past. I have personally experienced employees that felt some kind of entitlement and had this false belief that my rules did not pertain to them. Same went for some of the sub-contractors that worked for me. They all had the same responses when confronted about breaking those rules. First, disbelief that they got caught along with denial. Always, always it was the first time they had ever done anything like that, besides, they are just stupid rules anyway. Second was the begging and or the crying for the job, that just minutes before wasn't worth following the rules for. How are they gonna explain it to their wife and their kid in college. Then comes the anger, because I was the Arse for giving them what they asked for. Ever wonder where these disgruntled employees come from? Generally, they got fired for not following the rules.

Call me names, make snide comments, go the low road, iffin in your mind it makes you superior and makes you feel better. Don't make you right.

 

[Tirod]

On a parallel issue, Utah says our right to self defense is more important than company policy: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...lf-defense-trumps-corporate-employers-rights/

This doesn't cover carry on the property - it discusses whether you should engage others in the conduct of your duties when they have weapons. The point is that a business that opens its doors to the public is going to have people bring in weapons, regardless, and if your duty is to protect the company's property from theft, you are going to engage them regardless.

How we do that is supposed to be conducted by the guidelines - in this case, back off. But that doesn't happen in our imperfect world. The employees were fired for disarming the customer, which was their answer to protecting their life.

The next step beyond this would be pulling your firearm in defense of your life. This case doesn't touch that - but it's out there happening. And those individuals chose to have a firearm, and some have been fired for it. And reinstated.

You can and should act with the concept your life and rights are more important that company rules - if you are just a meat puppet for policy then consider that being so is no different that being a concentration camp guard at the doors to the gas chambers. You were only following orders, right?

It's nice to be remembered as the heroic teacher who shielded one or two children from a shooter, but you and they are still dead. Your choice to be a pacifist and die, but others do NOT and are NOT absolutely required to follow that moral decision. And saying they are is not granted you authority by the Constitution.

 

[JohnnyK]

I carried at my last place of employment because I was a delivery driver... and feared for my life... I am currently a teacher and carry a stapler or 3 hole punch or a text book close by just in case...

 

[Ed Ames]

Never said MY job is more important than my life. Just said my job and my integrity is more important than the minuscule threat of death from a threat at work that I can not handle without a firearm. So because I don"t agree with you, I have to be unemployed or have one hell of a miserable life? Funny how folks think they still win by belittling others when their other arguments fail. What a class act!

So here's the problem with that:

..But then I don't have those "Mall Ninja" fantasies that so many here have thinking....

"Duh......yep I'm going to carry my gun everywhere, even where prohibited so I can save the world and be a hero....yep, yep." This is similar to that elementary school mentality I spoke of earlier. This same guy who dreams he is going to save the world and be hero, probably has more likelihood of shooting his co-worker by mistake, or shooting his boss in the back of the head, when his gun drops outta his pants in the bathroom, than ever becoming a hero. It's because of folks like this that have bosses asking them to keep their guns at home.

Add in the heavy emphasis on your "integrity" (implication being that those who make a different choice lack integrity), and you don't seem to be doing much other than belittling those you disagree with.

Call me names, make snide comments, go the low road, iffin in your mind it makes you superior and makes you feel better. Don't make you right.

Words you should think about.


As far as integrity and rules go... There are lines. Some of those lines are widely recognized by society. We don't allow rules based on individual genetic makeup, sexual orientation, or political party affiliation for example. When rules cross those lines you have no obligation to answer truthfully, and may in fact have a moral obligation to interfere with the rules. There is an active debate today about where that line crosses the concealed carry topic. A lot of people take the view that whether you have a gun on your person is a lot like whether you are circumcised. Unless an employer can clearly articulate why details of what is in your pants matters to your ability to do your job, it just isn't a valid question and you have no obligation to answer.

 

[Om]

So here's the problem with that:



Add in the heavy emphasis on your "integrity" (implication being that those who make a different choice lack integrity), and you don't seem to be doing much other than belittling those you disagree with.



Words you should think about.


As far as integrity and rules go... There are lines. Some of those lines are widely recognized by society. We don't allow rules based on individual genetic makeup, sexual orientation, or political party affiliation for example. When rules cross those lines you have no obligation to answer truthfully, and may in fact have a moral obligation to interfere with the rules. There is an active debate today about where that line crosses the concealed carry topic. A lot of people take the view that whether you have a gun on your person is a lot like whether you are circumcised. Unless an employer can clearly articulate why details of what is in your pants matters to your ability to do your job, it just isn't a valid question and you have no obligation to answer.

On integrity: if I am being true to myself, then my integrity is secure.

 

[buck460XVR]

So here's the problem with that:



Add in the heavy emphasis on your "integrity" (implication being that those who make a different choice lack integrity), and you don't seem to be doing much other than belittling those you disagree with.



Words you should think about.


As far as integrity and rules go... There are lines. Some of those lines are widely recognized by society. We don't allow rules based on individual genetic makeup, sexual orientation, or political party affiliation for example. When rules cross those lines you have no obligation to answer truthfully, and may in fact have a moral obligation to interfere with the rules. There is an active debate today about where that line crosses the concealed carry topic. A lot of people take the view that whether you have a gun on your person is a lot like whether you are circumcised. Unless an employer can clearly articulate why details of what is in your pants matters to your ability to do your job, it just isn't a valid question and you have no obligation to answer.

The point of integrity as it pertains to this thread is this..... you made a choice to take the job with the rules, agreed to follow those rules, but never intended to follow them. There is no line there. It is pretty much lying straight faced. As far as the circumcision thing, most of us did not have that choice. It was made for us. Still a very far cry from carrying a firearm illegally or against company policy. Them straws must be gettin' harder to grasp. There was a valid question asked, do you agree to the rules and policies of this company. While you do not have an obligation to answer, if you do answer, you are only as good as your word.

As for the lines about rules tho, you are correct. Rules here state this....

You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

....still some in authority seem to think they do not have to follow them and make personal attacks. Must be where the line ends, eh? Or is it just because they believe rules are made to be broken?

This argument is just going around in circles. Making me dizzy. Folks are entitled to their opinions and I respect that. Differences of opinions are a fact of life on internet forums. As such, life goes on.

 

[jlr1962]

I carried at my last place of employment because I was a delivery driver... and feared for my life... I am currently a teacher and carry a stapler or 3 hole punch or a text book close by just in case...

Best thing I have is a padlock on a key rope. And I own the place these days. Different industry than before.

I guess Frank is taking a nap. I thought this wouldn't last this long.

 

[buck460XVR]

This is a pie-chart as to the outcome of these types of threads.



Folks....do what you think you need to do. I'm done here.

 

[Ed Ames]

The point of integrity as it pertains to this thread is this..... you made a choice to take the job with the rules, agreed to follow those rules, but never intended to follow them. There is no line there.

Two problems with that.

1) most employers disclose the rules only after hire. Sometimes significantly after. E.g. I had a job with a company for three years, agreed to relocate to a different state, and about a week after I had moved (three years after hiring on) they added a no weapons policy.

2) there are rules that as a society we have decided are invalid. If I hire on with a firm and am presented with a rule book saying i am now indentured for 10 years, or that my employer has the right to demand I give organs and tissue to the company for transplantation, or that I will vote Green Party, or a whole range of other things deemed beyond the allowed scope of employment agreements, integrity allows violating or ignoring those rules.

If your employer had a policy of testing certain disease agents on African American communities, and rules requiring that those tests be kept secret (wait, it did!), would it be integrity to follow those rules?

What you are seeing here is the fringe that thinks having the means to mount an effective self defense is outside the legitimate bounds of an employment agreement.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

- if you are just a meat puppet for policy then consider that being so is no different that being a concentration camp guard at the doors to the gas chambers. You were only following orders, right?

It's two completely different things. To equate the two is silly.

When you accept a job you are agreeing to follow the rules of your employer as part of your employment. That is a simple fact. If the policy and rules are unclear or vague, I say push it as far as you can and do what you feel is correct. If the rules are clearly stated it is simply a choice. I think most of us would agree that no weapons policies are in general, pretty foolish, but your employer is not asking you to abandon basic principles of right and wrong, and start killing people.

All this talk of integrity and morality is utter nonsense, and has no relevance on the topic at hand.

Your constitutional rights ARE NOT being infringed upon if there is a no weapon's policy, as oneounceload pointed out, since you have the option to NOT WORK THERE. It's no different than choosing not to patronize a business because they have a no firearms sign. You have the right to walk away and not spend money there.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If you accept the consequence then you have fulfilled your word. Your basic policy says "don't do X or we will do Y". If you're willing to let them do Y, then go ahead and do X.

This post right here is all you need to consider really.

 

[Sam1911]

This is a pie-chart as to the outcome of these types of threads.

That is too limited. In fact, whoever drew up that chart was a bit of a blockhead about it.

The way you present it suggests that there is no value to threads like this -- as though you and I were standing in a closet yelling at each other, in isolation, with no hope of ever changing the other's mind.

What really happens is you don't change your mind, I don't change my mind, but lots of other people read the thread and benefit from hearing various points of view and points of fact, and trains of logic they had not considered before. They CAN change their minds, or at least better understand the arguments for and against the varying perspectives.

Always remember, your words and how you present them, are a form of public performance, viewed by an audience who feels they can benefit or at least derive entertainment from reading them.

That's the value of spirited debate on public forums.

Folks....do what you think you need to do. I'm done here.

And that's really what some of us have been saying all along.

 

[oneounceload]

as though you and I were standing in a closet yelling at each other, in isolation, with no hope of ever changing the other's mind.

That was the way I saw you two..........

This is a topic where there is no middle ground in the discussion. I am surprised that those who would carry at work against the rules also don't carry at the USPS - after all, concealed is concealed, right? I don't remember about anyone "going warehouse" or "going factory", but the saying "going postal" is real and everyone knows the intention. If there was ever a place to go against something it would be there, correct? Civil disobedience it was called in Alabama when Rosa Parks was arrested. Perhaps these same folks should be doing some of that and getting the laws and rules changed regarding carrying while at work?

Otherwise, it seems this discussion has come to a standstill.

 

[jlr1962]

Sam is right. It is not a simple situation. I bet employment law is a good business to be in. Our last TWC (Texas Workforce Commission) hearing went well for us. No lawyers were involved.

I still think my former employer's VP and HR director are spineless schmucks though.

 

[jamesjames]

As a college professor, I have read this thread with extreme interest. I am a CCW holder, have a lot of hot range experience although no certified training in self defense shooting. I have struggled with this as my employer has a no weapons on campus policy. We just sat through our annual video and oral presentation on active shooter scenarios in which we are instructed to "Run, Hide, Fight". If it comes down to fighting, we are instructed to improvise weapons and fight savagely to neutralize the attacker. The tactics are completely parallel to and consistent with what you would do with a concealed carry handgun. The difference is the employer doesn't want the liability of cc handguns on campus (in the workplace). We also have rules and expectations about not using violence to settle disputes in the workplace. Yet in this instance, the employer is setting aside the normal rule of not using violence and instead allowing and encouraging the use of violence "in the gravest extreme" (thanks Mas!).

Now If I'm doing concealed carry right. nobody knows I am carrying on a daily basis. If I'm doing it right, I have never threatened anybody with the concealed carry firearm because it has been in concealment and never left the holster. If I'm doing it right, it only comes out "in the gravest extreme" to defend a life.

If my employer can suspend the no-fighting/no-violence rule in the gravest extreme circumstance, why can't I?

 

[Sam1911]

This is a topic where there is no middle ground in the discussion.

It does seem to be a very either/or kind of discussion, at least on the surface. I always see shades of grey, though. I guarantee there are people who are “in between” on this topic. For whom both the decision to and the decision NOT to are uncomfortable, and the weighing of risks, odds, and stakes, going either way, is quite difficult. In the end they do have to decide yes or no. Or maybe yes sometimes, and no sometimes.

I am surprised that those who would carry at work against the rules also don't carry at the USPS - after all, concealed is concealed, right?

Well, some will, of course. But that’s a clear (sort of…) matter of LAW, not just company policy. We cannot condone, nor discuss in depth, matters of violating the LAW here, so we have to leave that question somewhat unexplored. Certainly there are both much higher risks (prosecution for a federal crime) and lower exposure (few patrons will spend more than a few brief moments in a post office in any given month). But those are simply modifiers to the internal calculous.

I don't remember about anyone "going warehouse" or "going factory", but the saying "going postal" is real and everyone knows the intention.

I don’t know if you’re just trying to be funny, here, but if you haven’t heard of folks at warehouses or factories killing their co-workers (or former co-workers) at the workplace, then you’re not paying attention. Someone mentioned EXACTLY that happening at a competitor’s facility, in this very thread.

Civil disobedience it was called in Alabama when Rosa Parks was arrested. Perhaps these same folks should be doing some of that and getting the laws and rules changed regarding carrying while at work?

That’s a whole different question with different goals, different means, and different expectations. Civil disobedience is OPEN violation of a law, for the purposes of being arrested and bringing suit (at least in the court of public opinion) against your “oppressor.”
While important and valid, that’s not at all the discussion we’re having here.

 

[oneounceload]

Why not ask them instead of us?

 

[larryh1108]

The point of integrity as it pertains to this thread is this..... you made a choice to take the job with the rules, agreed to follow those rules, but never intended to follow them. There is no line there. It is pretty much lying straight faced.

All this talk of integrity yet you have never answered the direct question of how you accept a driver's license knowing full well that you will speed and do other things that are not rules but unlawful. You have proven that you only stand proudly on rules you consider valid to you and have chosen to say that if someone else sees it different, they are less than the fine, upstanding person that you are. However, you break a law every time you speed and think nothing of it. How can that be? Quit avoiding the question as you have done for days now. How can breaking a law be OK to your moral self and breaking a company rule be so wrong? Using your logic, if you know you will speed, you don't have to get a license. You promise the DMV and law enforcement to follow the rules of the road knowing darn well you won't. So what is it? Do as you say and not as you do? You lost me when you equated work rule breakers as those most likely to be work criminals.

 

[DeepSouth]

This is a pie-chart as to the outcome of these types of threads.



Folks....do what you think you need to do. I'm done here.

I have to input something here, their are people like myself who are reading this thread with an undecided mind. I honestly see both main points, although many of the "support arguments" are paper thin at best.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that it can be beneficial to some, like myself, who are undecided. I see good points and errors on Both sides and it's entirely possible that someone will eventually say something and I'll have an "ahh ha" moment and be done. It's happened to me before, most recently in the thread about wether illegal immigrants should be covered by the 2A.