Anti-Violence Policy

[Tman33_99]

My company has recently announced a new anti-violence policy to come into line with the PC times. I would like the great people of BE land to look at the email sent in the quotes below, and my planned response with any suggestions for changes.

Thanks

The email:

In an on going effort to keep our policies current, <edited> & Company will be adding an Anti-Violence Policy in the coming months.  This policy will include a section that addresses 'Prohibiting Weapons on Company Property'.  Weapons are defined as firearms or other deadly weapons including knives with a blade larger than two inches in length.  Weapons will be prohibited on Company property, including but not limited to the building, parking lots, sidewalks and company vehicles, regardless of whether the employee possesses a concealed carry permit.

Since May of 2003, when the Concealed Weapon Permit law, Senate Bill 03-24,  became effective in Colorado, employers have questioned the impact of this law in the workplace.  After careful consideration and much discussion, the State Courts and Legislation have decided that Employers retain the right to decide whether or not to ban weapons in the workplace or on company property. 

While <edited> & Company respects your individual right to carry a concealed weapon, all <edited> employees will abide by this policy effective immediately.  The written policy will follow by the end of January 2005.

If you have any questions regarding this policy, please see either me or <edited> for clarification.

Here is my planned response

Dear <edited>,

While I understand the desire of the company to want to maintain a safe environment for the employees of <edited>, I disagree with the policy as it is written in your email below <actually above in this case>.

It is extremely unlikely that any person willing to defy the laws of <edited; city>, the State of Colorado, as well as Federal statutes, and harm someone here at <edited>, will be deterred by this policy. This would include disgruntled employee, estranged spouse, or some other person or group that wished to harm someone (or multiple people) at <edited>. The true effect of this policy is to ensure that the honest employees of <edited> have had a legal means to defend their life removed.

I believe that by removing this legal means of self-defense, <edited; read The Company> is taking upon itself to ensure the safety the employees whether that is with-in the office, in the parking lot, or traveling in a company vehicle. <edited: The Company> may be exposing itself to possible liability if an employee is assaulted and seriously injured or killed on company property because a legal means of self-defense has been denied.

Having a policy prohibiting weapons will not prevent someone who has already decided to violate multiple laws from being violent. It will only prevent those who obey the laws and company policy from having a legal means of self-defense.

I do understand that <Moderator Edit> has the legal right to enact this policy. I will follow the policy since I am one of those that will follow the rules and the laws. I am asking that <edited; the company> take a closer look at the possible consequences of a policy that may directly affect one’s life more than any other policy.

Those that do have a concealed carry permit have had a thorough background check done by the sheriff and CBI. All carry permit holders are required to not only show proficiency in the handling and carry of a weapon, but also understand the legal responsibilities that entails.

I welcome any discussion on this subject to clarify any points that are not clear.

Sincerely,

Edited December 22, 2004 by Erik Warren

[rhino]

I would omit the part where you specifically state you will abide by their policy. You may be intending to do so, but I would not put it in a document you sign.

Also, you may wish to point out some of the more absurd specifics of their "rules." Most common Swiss Army Knives have blades longer than two inches. They are far less suited to use as a weapon than a Bic stick pen, but they would be prohibited by your company's inane policy.

You may also wish to ask them if they are willing to guarantee your safety (in writing) since they are attempting to limit your own ability to take responsibility for yourself.

[ErikW]

employees will abide by this policy effective immediately.

Or what? You get put on double-secret probation? You get a letter in your file?

[Merlin Orr]

The company I work for has the same type of policy in force. All employees are sent a form to update their personal contact information yearly which contains this clause in writing. I sign this form and return it to corporate every year.

I do not and will not abide by this particular rule. I know a large part of management - area and district managers that also disregard the rule. I understand it may cost me my job. I also understand that it may save my life. I made my choice.

I know this makes me a bad person but I accept that. Hell, I also knowingly violate the speed limit and claim two cats as kids on my income tax.

I am not going to worry about it.

[dajarrel]

I work for a public utility that prohibits firearms on plant site. We have a full time armed security department that is supposed maintain the security of the workplace.

I don't particularly like it, but it is a condition of employment.

They do supply a locker to secure your gun in during work hours that you alone have the key to.

FWIW

dj

[Detlef]

I do not know what size your co. is. If it is any large co. you probably don't have much chance fighting their rules. However, this sounds like one of those *liability* type rules that are not per se enforced and serve only a legal protection/liability limiting purpose in case something *goes wrong*. It is probably worth finding out. If so, you can continue to do whatever you please (responsibly, of course!), and follow a *don't ask, don't tell* approach. But then you should indeed not ask, or the recipient of your inquiry/comment might feel (legally) obliged to check up on you.

--Detlef

[AikiDale]

First of all it is not about preventing violence. It is about giving the legal staff something to point to to prove the company was not negligent when someone goes postal, violates the law and gets violent. The cogs are expendable as long as the company's liability is reduced.

My company adopted a similar policy a couple of years ago. I pointed out the State Legislature had specifically prohibited any company from including the parking lot section of such a policy and that the policy put the company in violation of State law. The chief lawyer told me I was correct, but the company was not going to the expense of reprinting all the employee handbooks because of a minor technicality.

[Sam]

Makes perfect sense to me. It is here-to-fore IMPOSSIBLE for some wacko to go postal and shoot a bunch of unarmed people with out first violating company policy.

Now, let me attempt to follow the logic..... Mr. D.S. Gruntled, ex-employee, loaths the company and managers, especially the managers, with such a blind seething rage that he intends to appear, forthwith, with his AK-47 and mow them all down and then turn his own cold hand upon himself. Yes.....yes.....now I see.... He intends to do this evil deed, but is given pause by the fact that he cannot do so without violating the company anti-violence policy. And thus his manic ministrations of maligned justice "lose the name of action", as the bard would say.

Hell, it's a real life saver.

[Detlef]

Sam,

this is not at all about stopping the employee, it is about putting a stop (or at least some barrier) to the co.s liability and reduce financial exposure. I venture the guess that they really don't care at all whether you carry your gun in the parking lot or car, but w/o such written policy they'd be liable if you accidentally or intentionally shot yourself or someone else. It is a legal maneuver and as such should not influence your doings.

Now...I do know about some companies that enforce similar rules by making agreement to searches condition of employment, and by conducting searches. If that's what it is, it's probably time to find another employer for more reasons than just this one policy...

--Detlef

[Tman33_99]

Well this new policy came out our HR dept, and I don't think they do that much with our corp lawyer. Most things lawyer driven come from another group. I think it is our HR dept which has more people, with less sense than it knows what do with it, so they generate busy work for themselves.

I agree that most of these policy types come from the Corp. CYA angle. I doubt my letter will have any luck, but there are a few carry people in my company. I would like someone who ever gets hurt because of these stupid policies that they sue the pants off the corp, then maybe some of this crap will stop.

I still plan on sending a modified copy of this letter to those that I feel need to see it.

Thanks for the input.

[Kimberkid]

I work at one of the largest manufacturing centers on this continent and we have a very similiar rule. I never did understand how the company can "reserve" the right to search your personal vehicle without just cause, but they claim they can. I am not a big fan of driving through the murder capital of the world late at night without a gun, but do comply becuase I cannot make anywhere near the same money anywhere else. I do appreciate it however, when others break this rule and carry in spite of the Man. I understand the onslaught that may come with that comment, but quitting isnt really an option. I try to keep in mind while driving back and forth to work, that I am driving a 2000 lb. single shot.

[rhino]

Hmmm ... on second thought, the letter is probably not a good idea at all because it violates rule #1 of "Don't Ask; Don't Tell."

[JFlowers]

We all say that companies take this stance to reduce liability, but do they not increase it as well? If someone came into a business and shot the place up, could the employees sue on the grounds that the company put them at risk by removing their ability to defend themselves?

[Tman33_99]

Well for good or bad, I have sent a modified version of the letter to the HR dept head who is gone for the holidays now. I have not decided for sure what I will do in the future. I seriously doubt that I will be subject to personal searches, and will scream about privacy rights if that should ever occur.

[Detlef]

JFL has hit the nail. Obviously, you have to decide how badly you want to stay emplyed by the company, and how badly they want to keep you. But a nice letter for everyone's record that you intend to abide by the *no firearms on person or in car* policy, but will hold the company liable for any harassment, injury or death you suffer as a result of this (e.g. because of a commute through dangerous territory), with cc to your lawyer (maybe even drafted by an NRA friendly lawyer) should wake them up. They are seriously exposing themselves legally if they deny you your right to carry a firearm. Should anything ever happen to you, you or your surviving family might be able to collect millions of dollars because you can show that your injury/death was a direct consequence of your company;s denial to exercise your constitutional rights. And because you generated a written record warning them.

Now, is collecting money when you're dead worth giving up that right. You decide...

--D.