Situation at work.

[RottenApple]

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

Please reread what I wrote and then read TPC 30.06.

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.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;
and (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
public. (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and i s not a pr emises or other place on w hich the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

In other words, unless the handbook uses this exact verbiage, they cannot legally prevent you from carrying, but may fire you if they find out.

[koconcept]

From what we were told in class yesterday all a employer has to do is put no weapons in the handbook or any other notification and it does not have to be compliant with 30-06. It falls under employer rights, you can carry and if you get caught can be fired but texas law also prevents them from prosecuting you. She even cited a instance where this very thing happened at baylor hospital, a employee there signed the handbook being given notice that licensed or un licensed carry where prohibited. The employee was caught carrying, and then fired. Baylor tried to prosecute the employee but was prevented from doing so under Texas law.

[RottenApple]

From what we were told in class yesterday all a employer has to do is put no weapons in the handbook or any other notification and it does not have to be compliant with 30-06. It falls under employer rights, you can carry and if you get caught can be fired but texas law also prevents them from prosecuting you. She even cited a instance where this very thing happened at baylor hospital, a employee there signed the handbook being given notice that licensed or un licensed carry where prohibited. The employee was caught carrying, and then fired. Baylor tried to prosecute the employee but was prevented from doing so under Texas law.

Exactly.

[tbrown]

They can fire you without putting it in the policy manual too.

[RottenApple]

They can fire you without putting it in the policy manual too.

This is Texas. They can fire you for having blue eyes or brown hair. That being said, if they have no official policy at all, and they fire you for having a firearm (actually stating that this is the reason), then TWC is going to have some fun. At the very least, the company won't be able to escape paying unemployment.

[tbrown]

They can fire you without putting it in the policy manual too.

This is Texas. They can fire you for having blue eyes or brown hair. That being said, if they have no official policy at all, and they fire you for having a firearm (actually stating that this is the reason), then TWC is going to have some fun. At the very least, the company won't be able to escape paying unemployment.

They probably have to pay UI premiums anyway. As long as they don't lay off too many people, no big deal.

[RottenApple]

They probably have to pay UI premiums anyway. As long as they don't lay off too many people, no big deal.

You are correct, they do have to pay the UI premiums. But when someone files for unemployment in Texas, TWC notifies the former employer and gives them a chance to challenge the request. The company can either provide a reason why they don't feel they should have to pay the unemployment or they can choose to not challenge (in which case the filer gets paid by default). If the company challenges and is successful, then the filer doesn't get paid, and the money that the employer paid in premiums is "credited" towards the company.

[03Lightningrocks]

They probably have to pay UI premiums anyway. As long as they don't lay off too many people, no big deal.

You are correct, they do have to pay the UI premiums. But when someone files for unemployment in Texas, TWC notifies the former employer and gives them a chance to challenge the request. The company can either provide a reason why they don't feel they should have to pay the unemployment or they can choose to not challenge (in which case the filer gets paid by default). If the company challenges and is successful, then the filer doesn't get paid, and the money that the employer paid in premiums is "credited" towards the company.

This is correct. One thing to add though. TWC has very specific parameters that decide if the terminated employee can collect weekly pay. The deal is, about the only thing that would cause a person to be disqualified for benefits is if they quit the job. Refusing to work and getting fired for it is interpreted as quitting. Unless the employer has asked an employee to do something immoral or illegal. This last part has a bit of room for interpretation but be assured, they rule in the employee favor the majority of the time these days. Unemployment insurance is looked at as stimulus money by the socialists in Washington. Word has been sent from upon high to do everything possible to give unemployment money to people.

[tamc9395]

Most employers will allow an employee to collect unemployment. We already pay for it, so unless you are an idiot, no one will object to your claim.

[03Lightningrocks]

Most employers will allow an employee to collect unemployment. We already pay for it, so unless you are an idiot, no one will object to your claim.

Yep... Same here. I did have a guy rejected by TWC. He said he quit... Which he did. TWC deNied him. Then he appealed it and tried to say he was fired... LOL. Some people are morons. He puts in writing he quit... Then he puts in writing he lied the first time had was fired? They have to go through the steps on any appeal. I never have been asked if it was OK to pay or not. I have simply been asked... Did you fire them or did he quit. I'm not lying under oath. I said he quit... They said thanks and denied him after his appeal.

[tamc9395]

I will not deny anyone a reasonable claim, but if you ar an idiot an claim false items - I will.