NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: FLUFF on August 31, 2009, 02:48:55 PM
-
One more hurdle to jump now that we have state wide carry.
Employee rights. I risk my job everyday to carry my ccw to my place of employment. I have been here 19 years now and I don't want to find another job.
It does not make sense to me that my company can make a "Company Policy" that will group me with the deadbeats, booosers and pot heads and not allow my firearm on company property, even though I have a CCW permit.
I can't even lock it up in my car during the day.
I think Florida has a some type of law about employee rights
Ya I know, Conciled is Conciled and all of that , but I would rather not be forced to brake company rules to protect me and my family when I pick up the kids on the way home from work.
-
If the parking lot is open to the public, you can legally have your CCW firearm in your car...
-
Yes I agree, I'm not breaking any state law's. However I will be in violation of company policy and subject to loosing my job.
It's just like when your not allowed to have a 12pk of Budlight in a cooler in the back of your truck at work, but it's just fine when your at home out tinkering around in the garage.
So company policy trumps state law by not allowing me to carry
-
I also wonder what responsibility the company has to protect its employees. I know there was some talk that because the company did not allow for CCW, that the company had a responsibility to insure the safety of its workers. Is there anything (laws, regulations, ect.) I can politely take to our HR department? Just like FLUFF, our company states that they don't allow firearms on company property, parking lot or in the building. With 430 driving to work is worse than going to church that meets in a school!
-
Again.......You always have the option of leaving the handgun locked in your car.
Of course, I agree with what was stated. We need to enact employee protection legisation that protects employees who own guns and also have them in their vehicles parked on company property from being fired. I would also support protecting employees right to carry firearms in their place of employment. While I support the rights of private property owners I do believe 2A rights need to be respected as well.
I do believe Oklahoma and Florida have passed parking lot legislation that protects permit holders to keep legal firearms in their locked vehicles on company property.
-
Yeah... My office allows no concealed handguns. We have a on site security team that is also completely unarmed (not even pepper spray) and I asked my boss what we're supposed to do if a gunman comes in and starts shooting... He told me we are supposed to get in a line and walk out as fast as possible. ::) Yeah, not feeling super safe about that at all. LETS LINE UP SO WE CAN ALL GET SHOT EASIER! /sarcasm >:(
-
I have the opposite problem. My place of business is a medical center, a CCW prohibited place by law. There are signs at every entrance. but buried within the company rules and policies is a line that says firearms in the parking lot are A-OK. So who friggin knows. If the people that make up the laws cant make things jive how are citizens supposed to live by them?
-
I think this more of an employer's rights issue. If an employer doesn't want to employ people who wear black shoes, that is their right. Nebraska is an "at-will" state, you can technically be fired for no reason at all.
-
This is an issue I have done a lot of research and thought on. Generally it becomes an issue of who's rights are more important, the employers right in whom they employ and their property rights to say what is allowed on their property, vs. the employees rights under the second amendment. Historically the employers? property rights has won out in this argument because violating someone?s second amendment rights was not looked upon as that big of a deal. But if you consider the second amendment is based on an individual?s right to self defense something that is a "fundamental right," the fundamental right would need to win out (at least legally). In the Supreme Court ruling in Heller VS. DC the majority even called the second amendment a fundamental right, so thereby if you have the cash and time to fight it, you should not be able to be disallowed to carry - at least leaving it properly secured in your vehicle in the company parking lot. One of these days I will get back to writing the paper that I started on this, it discusses the legal responsibilities of gun free zones, I was going to see if we could use it to fight posted and banned places.
-
My company has had a policy that prohibits weapons in our facilitites, company vehicles or on company property. With the passage of LB 430, I asked our HR and Legal teams to reconsider the policy as it was in conflict with state law. Our company has a history of making sure our policies reflect current law - which usually means less freedoms for employees but not always. I challenged them to consider updated our policy in order to maintain credibility with our policies. I am a member of the senior management team which may have helped to have consideration, but it didn't have to happen. Long story short, an updated policy came out this week that basically mirrors LB 430 - including company vehicles!! We can not have weapons in our facilities, but I don't think we could anyway as we are a financial institution. This is a positive step for our company and our nearly 1000 employees!! We can all make a difference in the workplace, just have a plan and a very good understanding of how policies are made. Good luck!!
-
This is what we need to work on for 2010 legislative session. Not to force companies to allow ccw, but to even the playing field for employees.
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.
Also, if the company prohibits keeping a gun locked in your car, they would be assigned liability for injury or death to an employee between work and home if ccw could have reasonably prevented it.
-
Just something to keep in mind, There are work places that would be MORE dangerous to carry then not to carry. Certain manufacturing facilities, construction, Factories, you get the drift. Just something to consider when we start talking to companies about changing policies.
I am all in favor of everyone being able to carry but if it puts people in danger because of the circumstances and working conditions we need to understand that some companies can not change their policies. Therefore saying that liability can be shifted to the company is going to be a little difficult. Who is going to decide what could or could not be "reasonably prevented" the answer which would (esp in today's world of the fixit.gov) create a "need" for another dept, or some nonsense to monitor all of it. So the biggest question I am going to voice on this is
Who is going to decide what is reasonably preventable? And what are they going to way into that decision?
-
Just something to keep in mind, There are work places that would be MORE dangerous to carry then not to carry. Certain manufacturing facilities, construction, Factories, you get the drift. Just something to consider when we start talking to companies about changing policies.
I don't follow you..... how are one of these jobs more dangerous by virtue of a law abiding employee having his thunderwear on? Unless they are mudwrestling in thongs or some such, an employee's choice of knickers and knickers accessories is MYOB! territory.
-
I guess that our statutes limit the areas where some think that ccw is riskier. Outside of places prohibited by law, I'm trying to understand where carrying legally would be too dangerous. The challenge that I have is that while it is legal to lock your carry weapon in your vehicle while you are in a facility that prohibits ccw, companies can enact policies that are more restrictive than state law.
-
If a company or entity determines that I cannot defend myself i.e prohibit CCW then they should assume any and all liability for any injuries, damages or death that arises from me not being able to defend myself. If a company determines that my carrying a firearm is too dangerous and subjects other employees to their percieved danger then they should have a full time 24/7 police officer(s) on staff, to supplement any crisis response planning to mitigate any behavior that could subject an employee to harm.
-
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
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
I am not in any way, shape, or form referring to them banning you from having a firearm in your vehicle. I agree 1000000000% that your vehicle is your vehicle and there is no way in heck they should be able to control what you have in there, at any time. I am only stating my concerns of the shifting of the liability to the company if something should happen in order to force companies to allow ccw INTO THE BUILDING OR ONTO THE SITE. So, sorry I have not been clear on this in the last three posts.
-
I have a hard time with this issue. While I agree everyone has the right to defend themselves, I think an employer/property owner should have the final say on what's allowed on the premises. If my neighbor doesn't want me to bring a gun into his house that's his right to make that decision, so I would consider an employer to be the same. Another thing to think about - you don't have the right to unlimited free speech at work. If you tell your boss to go **** himself, you'll get fired :D
I see vehicles as a different issue, since your vehicle is your own property. If it's parked in a private lot owned by the employer I can see how it's a gray area. My opinion would be that it should be allowed in the vehicle as long as it stays there, even if firearms aren't allowed in the rest of the property.
-
Sure, firearms in a vehicle is the more important issue, but I see a ban on ccw as a workplace safety issue. If your employer forces you to do something unsafe and something bad happens because of it, they are liable.
If you work on a catwalk without a proper safety rail and some idiot pushes you over the edge, the company is held liable. How is this any different?
-
If you work on a catwalk without a proper safety rail and some idiot pushes you over the edge, the company is held liable. How is this any different?
The company is held liable for the faulty railing they are not held liable for the actions of the idiot. If it is proven that he shoved you off then he is criminally liable.
-
First off let me say that rugermanx is right about places that you wouldnt want to carry. I dont think a firefighter would want to carry while fighting a fire. There are also a number of jobs that it is highly possible to catch something on something and then who knows what. I also dont think an employer should be able to tell me I cant have a firearm locked in my vehicle while I am at work.
Now heres a question for you all to ponder. A emloyer forbids weapons on and in company property. This includes all job sites and vehicles. They own some property that they pay employees to maintain and this property is used for hunting by the employer. Are they now breaking the laws by having firearms on that property?
-
Technically not breaking any laws, only their own company policies.
-
Technically not breaking any laws, only their own company policies.
Yep. Making them guilty of "Aggravated Hypocrisy"........ not a crime, but deadly to Company Morale, Good Order and Discipline.
-
I talked to our HR guy about it one day and his reply was about the same as I think of it. If you like your job dont push it.
-
I talked to our HR guy about it one day and his reply was about the same as I think of it. If you like your job dont push it.
It's days like this I thank myself for being my own boss.
-
Amen. Only problem with being your own boss, you have no one to blame for the crappy decisions. And whining about it only gets you a trip to the wacky ward for talking to your self.
-
Michigan is moving forward on this type of issue with HB5302 and HB5303.
Parking lot protection from being fired for having a legal firearm in your vehicle.