Situation at work.

[rp_photo]

I wonder what it would do to their insurance rates if a CHL employee was hurt or injured on the job in a situation where a weapon could have been useful but was prohibited and the employer was sued by the family of the employee.

IMHO, if a company policy or 30.06 prevented a CHL from defending themselves, the company or business should absolutely be liable.

[tjlarson2k]

Your boss is verbally telling you it's ok, but I'd get it writing just in case. If a co-worker happens to spot your gun for whatever reason and happens to take offense or freak out, it would be a silly reason to get fired, right?

But just note that if, God forbid, you are involved in a DGU (defensive gun use) at work, you'll probably be terminated anyway. But better to be carrying just in case and safe rather than sorry. It's up to you though. Risk vs. reward.

My place of employ has been broken into 3 times and two of those times we still had people in the building. I wasn't present for any of those incidents and it just so happened I was still waiting on my CHL to arrive in the mail anyway. But now that I have it, I've been carrying for 4 months at work and no one is the wiser. I informed my boss and he gave me the verbal "ok". And we have a nice line in our handbook that prohibits weapons but has a nice line at the end stating "unless otherwise stated by state law". So that means, so long as I comply with TX state law regarding CC, I'm good to go. We have no 30.06 posting on our building so I'm good to go. And now that we have a history of break-ins, they'd be hard pressed find a legitimate reason to disarm me or anyone else carrying.

I'd would weigh the likely hood of your place of work being a target of violence vs. your personal comfort level of carrying and potentially risking your job because of it.

[Dragonfighter]

I wonder what it would do to their insurance rates if a CHL employee was hurt or injured on the job in a situation where a weapon could have been useful but was prohibited and the employer was sued by the family of the employee.

IMHO, if a company policy or 30.06 prevented a CHL from defending themselves, the company or business should absolutely be liable.

Makes perfect sense but like the unenforceability of improperly worded 30.06 signs, something bad has to happen and case law established before we can point to it and say, "This is so." To the best of my recollection this has not occured yet. Perhaps Charles or JAllen have a more intimate knowledge and can correct me if I am mistaken.

OP, if your boss was willing to tell you to go ahead, he in all likelyhood not have a problem with the CYA letter.

[bizarrenormality]

My decision would depend on a few things. It is not illegal to carry there with a CHL.

How big is the company? Can anybody else fire you besides the owner? If no, I'd carry without hesitation.

I don't have to think twice.

However a direct violation of company policy can be grounds for immediate dismissal.

This is Texas. Rooting for the wrong football team can be grounds for immediate dismissal.

[tamc9395]

This thread is what I was trying to avoid with my employee handbook post. As an employer I trust you with many decisions and as an at will employee you waive many of your "rights". I expect you to have the correct training to peform the duties of your job. Should you not perform, I am still liable for your inabilies. As such, I am willing, as an employer, to provide you with the same trust (until someone screws it up). What is worse, the employee handbook with the rule written to prohibit would catch me in the net (since I too am an employee) - that sucks so I chose to trust my own judgement and pass that down.

Just a different perspective....

[03Lightningrocks]

I wonder about the insurance explanation. I have often concluded that most of these anti gun policies are driven by insurance, but never had anyone admit it. When asked, agents and carriers deny that.

Funny you picked up on that. I own a business and carry a 1 million dollar liability policy with a 10 million dollar "umbrella policy" to cover damages that exceed the basic coverage. There is zero reference to company firearms policy in any way, form or fashion. In 27 years... There never has been. So this makes me wonder the same thing. I am seriously doubting the old insurance explanation.

[flechero]

A little off topic but work related-

Let me encourage all of you to NOT LET PEOPLE YOU WORK FOR OR WITH KNOW YOU CARRY.

My former employer was a friend and fishing / hunting buddy and after 2 years working together we had a discussion about CHL and I eventually let him Know I had mine. (I usually don't tell anyone, period) Besides calling me to his office (as a "witness")for every firing, write up or heated argument he had with another (and there were many) he always was sizing me up to see if he could tell I had it on... and even patted my side a few times... never got "caught" as he didn't realize I'm lefty and patted my right side. I eventually left the company, we are no longer friends, it's a small town and he's a gossip and not an honest guy. Get the point?

[dac1842]

The employee handbook will prevail. Without written exemption you have been given notice. If for some reason something were to happen where you felt it necessary to pull the weapon, the company will stand behind the handbook to defend itself from potential liability. Also, if you share with anyone you "trust" you carry despite the handbook and that person turns you in now or later the employer has no choice but to enforce the handbook, again for liability reasons.

[dac1842]

One more bit of advice. A secret is only a secret if two people know it and one of them is dead. Never share you carry,

[Jumping Frog]

He can say whatever he wants. Push come to shove you signed an employee handbook stating you know you cannot carry at work. What he said is hearsay, could luck with that in court.

The law is clear. The handbook has to have the exact 30.06 language to constitute legal notice. He already stated his handbook does not include that language. Doesn't matter what he signed that is still not a criminal offense.

[Jumping Frog]

I wonder about the insurance explanation. I have often concluded that most of these anti gun policies are driven by insurance, but never had anyone admit it. When asked, agents and carriers deny that.

Funny you picked up on that. I own a business and carry a 1 million dollar liability policy with a 10 million dollar "umbrella policy" to cover damages that exceed the basic coverage. There is zero reference to company firearms policy in any way, form or fashion. In 27 years... There never has been. So this makes me wonder the same thing. I am seriously doubting the old insurance explanation.

I agree. I manage all the risk management aspects at our company among my other responsibilities. We switched brokers and insurance companies last month and I managed the entire process, including ensuring the data was provided and all questions answered. Never once was the issue of firearms on company property even discussed. To put this in perspective, my insurance budget is a little over $2.5 million this year, so we are not exactly an unsophisticated buyer.

[RottenApple]

As a non-emergency medical transport company, we carry $500,000 per vehicle/$1,000,000 aggregate combined commercial auto & business insurance. Nowhere in our policy are firearms or even weapons of any kind) mentioned. Nor was it an issue with any o the carriers or agents we looked at prior to going with our present insurer.

[Ipconfig]

Thanks all for the advice. I went back and asked for a CYA letter and its pretty much a no go. It was re-emphasized concealed means concealed. At this point I don't feel that I would be terminated for accidentally exposing but I will be leaving it in my car from now on.

[KaiserB]

Unless the wording in the handbook is the 30.06 language, you may still legally carry at work but may get fired if found out. Assuming, of course, that your boss didn't personally TELL you "no firearms at work". Verbal notification doesn't have to be in 30.06 language, but written does.

Personally, as long as my boss didn't actually tell me "no firearms at work" or "no weapons at work", etc, I would carry anyway. Fortunately, since I am the boss, I get to make those decisions.

An employer has the right to prevent employees (with a CHL) from carrying handguns into the workplace by a statement to that effect in the company policy manual and/or posting signs at all entrances, the signs for the employees do not have to meet the requirements of Section 30.06

[grim-bob]

Unless the wording in the handbook is the 30.06 language, you may still legally carry at work but may get fired if found out. Assuming, of course, that your boss didn't personally TELL you "no firearms at work". Verbal notification doesn't have to be in 30.06 language, but written does.

Personally, as long as my boss didn't actually tell me "no firearms at work" or "no weapons at work", etc, I would carry anyway. Fortunately, since I am the boss, I get to make those decisions.

An employer has the right to prevent employees (with a CHL) from carrying handguns into the workplace by a statement to that effect in the company policy manual and/or posting signs at all entrances, the signs for the employees do not have to meet the requirements of Section 30.06

I agree that an employer has the right to prevent it if they follow the correct notification procedures. An employee handbook without 30.06 wording does not. My reading of the law states that "written" communication must follow the 30.06 specifically.Taken from below

(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on t he property by a l icense holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on t he property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner
of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner
provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person
licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code
(concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a c oncealed
handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one
inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the
public.