UPDATE--Talking to management

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is a link to the FBI Workplace Violence Report. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/violence.pdf

Chas.

[dac1842]

Our company (40,000 employees) has a no weapons policy as well. I have had to dismiss two employees for possession of firearms on company property. I too have asked that we change our policy and I will try to articulate here what I was told. A plaintiff (employee) will have a hard time suing for negligence and failure to provide a safe workplace since it is not the employers responsibility to secure against all threats. The employer is held to a reasonable standard measure. Now if the employer knowingly permits employees to carry and an employee acts irresponsibly then the employer is can be held dually responsible. So in short the employer cuts it's exposure by barring weapons. The other scenario that was given was say a BG enters the facility, an CHL holder shoots in a effort to defend the workplace and misses and shoots and kiils another employee. You can bet your last dollar the deceased employee's family is suing the company and it won't be a cheap once to settle.
Now I know we have some lawyers who are members here that can probably do a lot better job of this then I did

[frankie_the_yankee]

Our company (40,000 employees) has a no weapons policy as well. I have had to dismiss two employees for possession of firearms on company property. I too have asked that we change our policy and I will try to articulate here what I was told. A plaintiff (employee) will have a hard time suing for negligence and failure to provide a safe workplace since it is not the employers responsibility to secure against all threats. The employer is held to a reasonable standard measure. Now if the employer knowingly permits employees to carry and an employee acts irresponsibly then the employer is can be held dually responsible. So in short the employer cuts it's exposure by barring weapons. The other scenario that was given was say a BG enters the facility, an CHL holder shoots in a effort to defend the workplace and misses and shoots and kiils another employee. You can bet your last dollar the deceased employee's family is suing the company and it won't be a cheap once to settle.
Now I know we have some lawyers who are members here that can probably do a lot better job of this then I did

Both scenarios you cite above are plausible. And I agree that they happen from time to time.

But isn't it even more common for an employee to be shot by 1) someone who brought a gun to the workplace with them in spite of a company ban, or 2) for an employee to be shot, mugged, jacked, or robbed travelling to or from work while unarmed (because of the policy), while their assailant is completely unaffected by the company policy?

Finally, "reasonable standards" can evolve or change over time. The legal eagles should be writing their law review articles now.

After all, what were the chances that 50 years ago someone could get a payout for falling off a ladder?

[tbranch]

But isn't it even more common for an employee to be shot by 1) someone who brought a gun to the workplace with them in spite of a company ban, or 2) for an employee to be shot, mugged, jacked, or robbed travelling to or from work while unarmed (because of the policy), while their assailant is completely unaffected by the company policy?

Finally, "reasonable standards" can evolve or change over time. The legal eagles should be writing their law review articles now.

Frankie,

Thanks! While we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, I have to agree with you on this.

Tom

[Charles L. Cotton]

Our company (40,000 employees) has a no weapons policy as well. I have had to dismiss two employees for possession of firearms on company property. I too have asked that we change our policy and I will try to articulate here what I was told. A plaintiff (employee) will have a hard time suing for negligence and failure to provide a safe workplace since it is not the employers responsibility to secure against all threats. The employer is held to a reasonable standard measure. Now if the employer knowingly permits employees to carry and an employee acts irresponsibly then the employer is can be held dually responsible. So in short the employer cuts it's exposure by barring weapons. The other scenario that was given was say a BG enters the facility, an CHL holder shoots in a effort to defend the workplace and misses and shoots and kiils another employee. You can bet your last dollar the deceased employee's family is suing the company and it won't be a cheap once to settle.
Now I know we have some lawyers who are members here that can probably do a lot better job of this then I did

The reasons you were told are not the law in Texas. As for the death case, yes the family can sue, but not on a negligence theory. They can only bring a malice claim and that one would fail, based upon the bogus scenario they gave you. It is very very hard to prevail on a malice suit and a first year law student knows it.

Chas.

[7GenTex]

Well - if this is where I think - my previous statements regarding the CEO and COO being in violation and subject to dismissal are incorrect as the "personel practices" allow CEO to approve exceptions.

Maybe this would be a good time to be an exception?

[pt145ss]

When I started this thread months ago, our policy at work essentially said no firearms on the premises…licensed or not (this is very much paraphrased). The policy fell just short of citing 30.06. It was very restrictive to say the least.

We did have someone talk to the Chief Operations Officer (a CHL holder himself) In a very informal setting (it was a retirement party). The COO said “Let a sleeping dog lay.” He basically said that if we formally pushed the issue, his concern would be that HR would bone up on their weapons law and add the 30.06 verbiage to the already restrictive policy. We respected the COO's opinion and let it go.

Today, out of the blue, I received a PM from someone on this forum who has a loose tie to my employer…(I did not know the identity of this forum member until today…even though we had PMed each other in the past about this thread…thank you 7GenTex). Anyway, this forum member pointed me to the personnel practices section of my employer’s web site. I was shocked to see that the weapons policy (as of October 2008) now reads:

“Weapons are strictly prohibited with in the office building, except as noted below. Violation of this practice will subject the employee to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment, as well as criminal prosecution.

A person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, of the Texas Government Code (concealed handgun law), may enter the offices with a concealed handgun”

Like WOW!!!! What a shift in policy. If I am reading this correctly…anyone can car carry regardless of CHL status as there is no “premises” verbiage like before. And then the biggie…CHL allowed to carry in the building.

I almost feel kind of mushy inside…and apprehensive at the same time. I emailed my self a soft copy of the new policy as well as printing a hard copy (one for my desk drawer and one for my glove box).

My only concern is that we will not get a new “employee handbook” until the beginning of next year and the current “employee handbook” still has the old verbiage. The new employee handbook should reflect the new policies set forth in the “personnel practices” section of our web site. Because of this difference I may hold off on carrying in the building…what do ya’ll think?

[nitrogen]

I had a great "unofficial" discussion several months ago with our corporate security guy, a former MI6 agent, and generally swell guy. He told me the story of why our policy is so strict.

The problem with our company, is that at our main office, we have a lot of high-clearance fedgov stuff. They even have a lease of space on our roof at that office, with domes covering satdishes, so nobody can tell where they are pointed. Supposedly at top secret satelittes or something.
a few years ago, an employee brought an AK to go shooting with another coworker. They were ogling the weapon, in his trunk, in the parking garage. Apparently, one of the fedgov employees saw it, and freaked out because "THERE ARE TERRORISTS WITH FULL AUTO WEAPONS IN THE BUILDING" and sounded some kind of internal alert. After the investigation, embarassment, lost time, and other Male Bovine Excrement, the company basically, said, "no weapons on the property, those fed gov folks spook way too easily."

Fast forward to about a year and a half ago. They acquire our office, which is in Texas, with another office in SFO. In a seperate state then where the main office is.

[edited] Basically he told me to not sweat it.

My point for bringing it up is, there are often reasons besides legal ones why a company might want to have a policy about banning weapons. If I was at the main office, I'd expect to be searched, but not here. We're just a support and sales office here.

[NcongruNt]

[7GenTex]

I'm not an attorney (but I really did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nite!)

The effective date of the new policy on the intranet should supercede the old employee handbook provisions.

But if you get to the point of having to argue that........Game over anyway as Texas is an "at will" employment state.

As always, concealed means concealed...........

[pt145ss]

I'm not an attorney (but I really did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nite!)

The effective date of the new policy on the intranet should supercede the old employee handbook provisions.

But if you get to the point of having to argue that........Game over anyway as Texas is an "at will" employment state.

As always, concealed means concealed...........

I agree...I think I will take a "don't ask and don't tell" approach to the whole thing.