











Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
That really is a picture of TAM!Lynyrd wrote:Thank you sir! And by the way, my beard is almost as gray as the one in your picture.The Annoyed Man wrote:Dude, you won the forum today.
I know there are two of us now. Maybe more in the future. But, we are a small outfit so that's probably in line with statewide stats.baldeagle wrote:Thanks for being rational and patient. You've obviously earned your employer's trust, and that is a good thing. May your tribe increase.
You are most welcome! It may be small, but it is very important to me.zero4o3 wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote:Dude, you won the forum today.![]()
And thanks for sharing Lynyrd
Congratulatons on your great success. I love your analogy to the fire extinguishers! I'm going to use that for it makes a great point that people can easily understand.Lynyrd wrote: ... We have fire extinguishers all over the plant, but we're not looking for a fire. ...
The signs are still up, but there is now a new section in the employee handbook about how employees can apply for written authorization from the company to CC. There are several restrictions, and OC is still not allowed.
The Annoyed Man wrote:Dude, you won the forum today.
I'm sorry to hear that. It's hard to get people to admit that the signs do not make them safer. Quite the opposite is actually true. In my case, I had the opportunity to spend time with the decision maker. I asked him why the signs were a good idea and then one by one calmly showed him the lack of logic in his reasoning. It took some time for me, this happened over the course of several months. And I would never have been successful if I hadn't got him to open up to me and explain his reasoning. Also, I didn't ridicule him for his flawed logic, I just exposed other ideas and asked him to think about it.VMI77 wrote:Good for you. I experienced the opposite. For years my company explicitly allowed CHLs to carry, then just before the holidays, changed policy to prohibit both CC and OC and posted 30.06 and 30.07 signs.
In my case it isn't a single decision maker...at least in theory....though that just makes the reversal harder to understand....since the same group that approved it for years by majority vote turned around and killed it. In the past the company even hosted a CHL class for employees on its property. I'd bet that we have a way higher percentage of employees with CHLs than most companies. In my particular department it's probably more than 50% and many of them were pretty vocal at the meeting where the change was announced.Lynyrd wrote:I'm sorry to hear that. It's hard to get people to admit that the signs do not make them safer. Quite the opposite is actually true. In my case, I had the opportunity to spend time with the decision maker. I asked him why the signs were a good idea and then one by one calmly showed him the lack of logic in his reasoning. It took some time for me, this happened over the course of several months. And I would never have been successful if I hadn't got him to open up to me and explain his reasoning. Also, I didn't ridicule him for his flawed logic, I just exposed other ideas and asked him to think about it.VMI77 wrote:Good for you. I experienced the opposite. For years my company explicitly allowed CHLs to carry, then just before the holidays, changed policy to prohibit both CC and OC and posted 30.06 and 30.07 signs.
Our new policy is very much like some of the school districts. The public cannot bring guns in. Some of the staff are armed, but no one knows who. Those who do carry cannot talk about it or they may lose the privilege. We have been living under that for a week now, and I haven't heard a single conversation about it.