General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Employee Rights

<< < (4/7) > >>

rugermanx:
Carrying concealed or open while doing certain jobs poses a risk to yourself and to your coworkers, No matter how good your holster is there are jobs where your gun will take alot of abuse. Some of this abuse could cause it to malfunction. Such as jobs where temperture of the environment, and abuse the weapon would be subjected to amplify the chance of a malfunction. Basically the same reason I don't wear my wedding band at work It could amplify the chances of getting burned, or hooked on something and tearing a finger off. (I have seen both happen several times.)

Roper I understand your point on the parking lots,and am not contesting that, I am simply refering to Schlumper's mention of



--- Quote from: schlumper on September 17, 2009, 03:18:37 PM ---As it is right now, hardly any companies allow ccw for liability reasons. I think it would be good to establish liability to the company if an employee is injured or killed at work if the company forbids ccw and ccw could have reasonably prevented it.

--- End quote ---

So my question is not about the parking lots, nor offices, storefronts, or any other place where the environment does not pose a risk. I can honestly  tell you there are places I prefer to be wearing my gun, however there are places, (anywhere near a welder, boiler, cooling tower, manufacturing machinery, presses, lathes, PTO equipment, and several other environments) where I will NEVER go while wearing a gun. To me, establishing liability to the company is a dangerous game to play. I am going to repeat the questions of my former post. Who is deciding what situations could have been "reasonably prevented"? And what are they going to weigh into that decision? Are they going to take the reason why the person decided to pose a risk in the first place (why the guy lost his marbles) into account?

Plus I don't like the .gov telling me what choices to make (even if I agree with the choice) since giving them the power to say who's fault it is could later come back to bite me in the rear.

The company has no control over the individual and what they do. I see shifting the liability to the company as a strong arm tactic that I would not want used on me so therefore cannot support the use of it against someone else. If we want these companies to change the policies the way to do it (at least in my mind) is to show them the facts and use logic and reason to get them to see our side of the issue. If they still don't see the light then, I guess they refuse to open their eyes and perhaps we should reconsider our employment, or our business relationship with the company. (such as handing them a "no guns no money" card or looking for a company that aligns itself closer to our beliefs.

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer on the part of the discussion that I was referring to. Hopefully this cleared it up.

schlumper:
Now don't get me wrong, what I originally stated is a gross oversimplification. There could easily be exceptions made where carrying would directly effect the safety of the work place or directly effect your job performance or possibly even if they provide armed security, but there's really no excuse for forbidding having one locked in your car.

As for defining "reasonable capable" of preventing injury/death, I'm sure something could be figured out to make a clearer legal distinction.

Roper:
rugermanx - I better understand your thinking, thanks. Except for growing up on the farm, I have not had much exposure to the industrial hazzards that you mentioned so my opinions won't carry much weight.  Good conversation!

rugermanx:
Glad that helped to clear that up.

I guess, schlumper, I have a huge problem with all the b$ legaleze we are surrounded with everyday. Everywhere you look  there are pages and pages of words that say what most people can say in a few words. I don't like the thought of trying to push this part of our agenda thru the use of a law, the safety of the environment being only part of that. The other part is I want smaller .gov and bigger amounts of freedom, and unfortunately freedom includes for those who disagree with me to hold thier views and make policies for their companies/properties that I don't particularly like. I opposed the smoking ban for the same reason, I don't want the state coming in and telling me what I can and can't do on my property, so I felt that I had to stand for the rights of the bar/resturaunt owners' rights to make that decision on thier own. In fact the same principal applies there, If you don't like the smoke in a bar, express that to the bar owner and then re evaluate going there. If you don't like the smoke there are other places to go.

FLUFF:
I agree to a point, I don't want the state to come in and tell me what, when and how to do things. But it is a fact of life, they already do
 
But should an employer be able to restrict my rights to protect myself and my family while I am off the clock?? By restricting my rights to keep my CCW in my vehicle I am unable to carry my CCW on a daily basis.

If I show up for work on time,Fit, health, sober and ready to go why should anybody give two shakes what I have under my seat in the parking lot. Why do they group me and others together with the drunks, potheads and slackers

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page