TexasCHLforum.com

for instance, if an employer has a sign the gun with the circle with the bar slash across it and states no handguns allowed on premises, NO 30.06 sign, is a chl holder allowed to enter the premises, i think so, but would risk the chance of loses his/her job if employed there, but would face no criminal actions, all it says in the statues is that a that the supchapters do no limit or restict the employers rights it forbid guns on premises, but dont they still have to have a 30.06 sign for any criminal actions????

para1911 wrote:for instance, if an employer has a sign the gun with the circle with the bar slash across it and states no handguns allowed on premises, NO 30.06 sign, is a chl holder allowed to enter the premises, i think so, but would risk the chance of loses his/her job if employed there, but would face no criminal actions, all it says in the statues is that a that the supchapters do no limit or restict the employers rights it forbid guns on premises, but dont they still have to have a 30.06 sign for any criminal actions????

Looks like you answered your question.

get caught = get fired..

One thing I would offer to ensure you are careful with your employer. I work for a fortune 100 company and I searched all online support and I the entire employee manual for any restrictions on carrying at work. When I inquired with my HR department (mistake) they reiterated that the company had no policy preventing me from carrying. Two weeks later an email want out to the entire company stating that they felt this was covered under the policy citing "all employees should feel comfortable that they can come to work in a non-hostile workplace. A non-hostile workplace is one free of any co-worker carrying knives, guns or amunition."

By attempting to ensure I was compliant I created a situion in which nobody can carry and claim they were unaware of the companies position. Subsequently, they have added an addendum to the handbook.

In a follow up with HR they told me that even had I not inquired they would likely have let me go anyway had it been discovered I was carrying at work, I do not have my plastic yet so of course I have not, under the same policy. Now in Texas they can do this becasue it is a right to work state but in some states they would likely have trouble.

Be careful, some companies are just plain unfriendly and will find a reason whenever possible to remove you if they find you carry at work under the "spirit" of some other policy the determine was meant to deal with this issue.

I'm sorry for your experience. Maybe this will help others who read it.

This is exactly why I think SB534 is the worst thing to happen this year.

Maybe others will understand when law abiding CHL's try to do the right thing and are fired for it.

If I ever again work for a company that prohibits firearms, I will rely on my secrecy and discretion. Even if SB534 passes, I will NEVER tell an employer anything to cause them to suspect I may have a firearm on company property.

Hindsight being what it is...I will do likewise.

neal6325 wrote:
In a follow up with HR they told me that even had I not inquired they would likely have let me go anyway had it been discovered I was carrying at work, I do not have my plastic yet so of course I have not, under the same policy. Now in Texas they can do this becasue it is a right to work state but in some states they would likely have trouble.

Be careful, some companies are just plain unfriendly and will find a reason whenever possible to remove you if they find you carry at work under the "spirit" of some other policy the determine was meant to deal with this issue.

Just a correction - Texas is not a right to work state. This means you can be fired at will. There are some limitations to this statement, such as proven discrimination and wrongful terminations, but beyond those laws, a Texas employer can probably fire you for parting your hair down the wrong side of your noggin.

Hoppes
--------

Texas sure is a right to work state. That means you can't be made to join a union.

Texas is also an at-will employment state, which means you can indeed be fired for parting your hair wrong (they will have to pay unemployment in that case).

- Jim

seamus is right.. employers almost always lose an unemployment hearing in Texas, unless they have strong cause (theft, drug use, chronic lateness)..

seamusTX wrote:Texas sure is a right to work state. That means you can't be made to join a union.

Texas is also an at-will employment state, which means you can indeed be fired for parting your hair wrong (they will have to pay unemployment in that case).

- Jim

Please allow me to clarify my comment. "right to work". I refer to the ability of an employer or employee to terminate employment at will.

In regards to:

Texas Codes Ann. Title 3 §§ 101.003, 004, 052, 053, 102, 111, 121, 122, 124

I agree that an employee cannot be forced to join a union. I think that is as far as the "Right to Work Law" extends. But for the purposes of my post reply, I simply refer to "employment at will". Under this doctrine, I understand it to meant that in the absence of a contract or legal agreement, an employer may generally fire employees for any reason, no reason, and even an unfair reason as long as the reason is not illegal under any other law, statute or regulation.

that's why I was quick to holler that Texas is not a right to work state.

Hoppes

Hoppes wrote:that's why I was quick to holler that Texas is not a right to work state.

You definitely don't have a right to get or keep a job.

Some countries' constitutions contain such a right, but it doesn't work out in practice.

- Jim

Our company was just bought by another. I have been transfered to their office and on my first visit I saw it. The sign. WEAPONS OF ANY KIND NOT ALLOWED> THI INCLUDES PERSONS LICENSED TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGNS. Unless authorized byin writting by management.

Not taking any chances. Not telling anyone.

RPBrown wrote:WEAPONS OF ANY KIND NOT ALLOWED> THI INCLUDES PERSONS LICENSED TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGNS. Unless authorized byin writting by management.

I would say that you HAVE been authorized in writing by the management already. The law very clearly spells out what is needed to restrict CHL from private property. The fact that their sign does not have that wording means that you are authorized by that sign to carry.

That logic would work with the prosecutor, but probably not the boss.