Guns in the Workplace

[drgrant]

I would agree if the actions of the employer affected the employee during ONLY working hours. But they do not, and I do not.

Their policies disarm you on your own time: the drive there, the drive back, and any place you may stop in between. Therefore an inalienable right has been infringed and the legislature must step in to provide redress.

+1... I agree that while employers may have the right to prohibit someone
carrying on the job, but they should not be able to inhibit you from carrying
to/from work.. and if they do not want you storing a gun in your vehicle, then
they should provide some means of onsite secure storage.

-Mike

 

[MaverickNH]

How much does everyone want to bet that this statistic is based off of
unbalanced data? (eg, data that is not normalized).
-Mike

That's getting harder and harder for me to say, as papers such as these, from authors such as these, reference prior papers that reference prior papers ad nausium, with the authors not posting thier data and anaylses on accessible web sites. Those that fall in the anti- camp (like Hemenway from MIT) typically deny requests for data even to other qualified scholars. This flies in the face of peer-reviewed scientic publication policies, but when a scholar noted to debunk anti-gun junk-science writes a journal editor to complain, they are ingored, as the editors are vested in liberal notions as well. Kind of like the chickens complaining to the captain of the guard - the head fox.

While I'm good with multi-factorial statistical analysis, all of the adjustments made to data sets are over my statistical head. If a fellow like John Lott can't get the data, he can't say much either. In this case, they used no publically available datasets, so we are mostly screwed in debunking their analysis.

In this case, the authors used the medical examinar for a listing of homicides classified as workplace-related, then called 105 of these and 210 random companies, purportedly matched by industry and other factors. Maybe they corrected for the effect, but the old trick is to double the control population so as to reduce it's variance, thereby making any differences between the control and test populations seem significant. That is, two noisey data sets seem roughly the same, until you add so many to the control data set to reduce its noise, so that the two data sets appear different.

Like they say, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Anyone who wants to PM me an email address, I'll send them the papers.]

 

[MaverickNH]

So, if my employer uses EZ HR Policies software and prints out the standard Employee Manual, prohibiting weapons of any and all sorts on the premeses, am I morally, ethically and legally deficient for CCW at work?

If so, then presumably equally so for carrying a folding knife?

If so, whom have I offended? My boss? The President/CEO? The landloard we rent the space from? In my case, as a pre-IPO, would it be the investors? The fund manager of the investor? The investors in my investors?

Or have offended, not a person or persons, but a 'corporate entitiy', devised by the stroke of a pen?

Legally, morally and ethically, I need to know whom I have wronged - the same for all three?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

EG, The number of companies that have full blown "no gun" policies are far lower in number than the number of companies that don't have any

If you substitute "companies that employ more than 1000 people" for "companies", I'll bet you'll find that the reverse is true.

 

[sksguns]

Don't ask don't tell. If you have a license to carry concealed why would you do otherwise at work. You don't need to go bragging to everyone you're armed so the chances of them finding out you are carrying are slim.

Secondly, when you get a job at most major companies they make you sign an employment agreement that includes agreeing to their policies. In that agreement you are commiting yourself to obey those policies and you can bet most have a no firearm clause.

I work for a fairly large company and they rent/lease most of their property. Since they don't own the building or the land would I be incorrect in assuming they have no control over what I keep in my car? But in the 15 years I have been here not one person has ever come to me and asked if they could look at anything I have nor have asked me if I had a firearm on me. My boss amd most, if not all of my co-workers know I have a license, know I own firearms and know I kave an ALP-LTC. Not once has anyone asked if I carry at work. So I guess I'm living under a rock because I never thought this was that big of an issue.

I wasn't supposed to chew gum in school......but I did.

 

[TonyD]

1. Neither the 2d Amendment nor the 4th Amendment applies to one's employer.

2. While corporations do not have all the same constitutional rights as natural persons, their constitutional property rights are the same.

You're saying that one's employer has the right to violate an employee's 4th Amendment rights at will?

THAT is the slippery slope.

 

[KMaurer]

You're saying that one's employer has the right to violate an employee's 4th Amendment rights at will?

THAT is the slippery slope.

Unless your employer is the government, it's impossible for them to violate your 4th (or 2nd or 1st ...) amendment rights. They're entitled to control and look through any personal property you choose to bring onto their property. If they decide to do the same sort of thing off their propertyand without your permission, then that's B&E or perhaps burglary. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and all other amendments, defines and limits what the government is allowed to do. It says nothing about how your employer, neighbors or family members treat you. That's what laws are for.

Ken

 

[drgrant]

If you substitute "companies that employ more than 1000 people" for "companies", I'll bet you'll find that the reverse is true.

Rob, that's basically what I was getting at.... by monkeying around with
the data sources, the so called anti-gun "researchers" can make the data
show whatever they want it to.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

So I guess I'm living under a rock because I never thought this was that big of an issue.

I wasn't supposed to chew gum in school......but I did
.

Yeah, but the difference is if you got caught chewing gum you either got your
hand hit with a ruler or you got detention, or if the teacher wasn't a douche you
just got told to spit it out. The repercussions were not life altering. (as opposed
to losing your job... which is a luxury only for the independently wealthy or those
who have something else solid to fall back on. )

In this issue someone found (say, by matter of exigency) to have a firearm
in their vehicle could more than likely be fired. A lot of companies with
liberals running the show will also use "the gun thing" as a sword of damocles
over your head, as well. I agree that "don't ask don't tell" is probably
the best policy but it certainly is not without its faults.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Unless your employer is the government, it's impossible for them to violate your 4th (or 2nd or 1st ...) amendment rights. They're entitled to control and look through any personal property you choose to bring onto their property. If they decide to do the same sort of thing off their propertyand without your permission, then that's B&E or perhaps burglary. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and all other amendments, defines and limits what the government is allowed to do. It says nothing about how your employer, neighbors or family members treat you. That's what laws are for.

Ken

An interesting side note to this is that government/quasi government
jobs often have a lot of restrictions WRT guns. I mean look at the post
office... a lot of good all those rules do them, though.

-Mike

 

[Chris]

I dunno what the big deal is about. I have guns all the time here at work. Heck, Sometimes I openly clean them on my desk.

(^_^)

 

[KMaurer]

Each of the examples cited derives from a statute that is designed to effectuate the purposes of some other statutory scheme. More importantly, none involves mandating that the owner of private property permit physical entry onto the property by someone whom the property owner elects to exclude, which amounts to a partial confiscation of the landowner's property. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).

Yes and no. As to the first, yes, but there's nothing to inhibit statutes designed to protect the individual right to legal self defense and the effective means of doing so, which seems to be exactly what the NRA and others are seeking. As to the second, no, since there doesn't seem to be any problem with employers wanting to exclude their employees from the workplace. Rather, it's the desire of some to search their employees vehicles for items that are not brought into the workplace, and termininate employees found in possession of anything they choose to prohibit. Employers as private property owners would seem to have a perfect right to prohibit outsiders from coming into the workplace to distribute religious tracts or partisan political materials to their employees. They probably also have a right to prohibit the distribution of such materials in the workplace by employees, and possibly (though somewhat more questionably) their mere possession in the workplace by employees. Do we really believe that it would constitute any taking of their private property to limit their powers to search the private vehicles of employees for such materials and terminate those found to be in possession? It hardly seems egregious to insist that any employer who allows employees to drive private cars to work and provides parking for those employees accepts that those vehicles remain the private property of the employees and be respected as such.

Ken

 

[matt]

A more visceral support for RKG's position:

If, as an employer, I say my employees can't disciple customers in the ways of the wacky left while at work, am I violating their right to free speech? If I say they can't hold rally's supporting the anti-gun movement on my property, am I violating their right to assembly? Or if I say they can't hold religious services on the property, am I violating their freedom of religion? If I require my employees to wear uniforms or suits and ties, am I violating their freedom of expression? I'd say the answer to all of these is NO.

If I'm paying you, I set the terms and conditions. Maybe we negotiate them, but in the end I've got the $$. It's my property, my $$, you do what I say, or screw!

If you don't want to work for me, don't! If enough companies start loosing (good) employees to companies that allow CCW at work, they will correct their policies.

All that said, if I had my own company, I'd allow CCW. But I don't. I get paid to do my job and follow the rules. I agree most companies are radically mis-guided in their decisions on this topic. But they have a right to make whatever decision they want. I have a right to pound sand and try to find gainful employment elsewhere.

 

[TonyD]

It hardly seems egregious to insist that any employer who allows employees to drive private cars to work and provides parking for those employees accepts that those vehicles remain the private property of the employees and be respected as such.

Ken

And that is my point and that of NRA. One's vehicle is supposed to be an extension of one's castle.

 

[kevin9]

And that is my point and that of NRA. One's vehicle is supposed to be an extension of one's castle.

+1

That's a succinct way of stating the point. I agree that employers generally have the right to restrict employees from open or concealed carry on their premises and in their buildings, but I see a big difference between that and attempting to prohibit what legal items I can have inside my private property.

 

[MaverickNH]

+1

That's a succinct way of stating the point. I agree that employers generally have the right to restrict employees from open or concealed carry on their premises and in their buildings, but I see a big difference between that and attempting to prohibit what legal items I can have inside my private property.

So, let's go a step beyond the company that prohibits anyone from bringing any and all weapons on company property, and talk about conditions of employment as well as private property. There are also those companies that prohibit employees from having any weapons during the conduct of company business, intending that employees contracted out or providing services to others no have weapons.

This could mean, that during customary and/or specific work hours, I could not carry or transport a gun, whether driving a company car or being reimbursed (or not) for mileage in a personal car.

Again, I could not take the job or quit if a change in policy was instituted after hire, but is this my only recourse? Or are conditions of employment different from physical property restrictions?

 

[Weerd Beard]

I dunno what the big deal is about. I have guns all the time here at work. Heck, Sometimes I openly clean them on my desk.

(^_^)

Not all of us work from home

 

[MaverickNH]

A more visceral support for RKG's position:
If, as an employer, I say my employees can't disciple customers in the ways of the wacky left while at work, am I violating their right to free speech? If I say they can't hold rally's supporting the anti-gun movement on my property, am I violating their right to assembly? Or if I say they can't hold religious services on the property, am I violating their freedom of religion? If I require my employees to wear uniforms or suits and ties, am I violating their freedom of expression? I'd say the answer to all of these is NO.

Picture me going about my day, doing my job, not preaching gospel or left-leaning politics to colleagues and customers, not holding a rally in the parking lot, wearing a suit and tie if required. Any problem apparant?

Now picture me, eactly as above, but not carrying a concealed weapon. How has my outward appearance, behavior and conduct of my job duties differed in the two instances? In no way discernable.

If an employer prohibits the eating of meat at the company, as they are a devout vegetarian, and I come to work with a belly full of beef, have I violated the employers property rights? Maybe in spirit, but the rules was not to eat meat on site, and was not that I cannot be on site haven eaten meat.

If the intention is that I cause no violence in the workplace, then the rule should prohibit said violence, and not supposed instruments of violence, if those instruments are instruments of self-defence.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Let me take this one step further!

Let's say that the ABC Company has a firm, written policy that no employee will ever have firearms on company property (including parking area), or on any site where the employee is conducting business.

NOW, let's say that said employee works out an arrangement whereby he/she works at home 1 day a week?

What then?

Possession of any firearms in the home on the days said employee is conducting business from there would be a clear violation of said employee agreement/policy.

If they can search your car and fire you for what's in it in the parking lot or if you are driving your own car to a customer site, why can't they fire you for working in your home where firearms are kept?

I don't see any difference in these two cases?

So, where does the line get drawn on an employee agreement? When does it become a defensible infringement and when isn't it?

Does anyone else see a problem here? I certainly do.

 

[Cato]

I agree with RKG and the position he takes here.

Let’s look at it from another angle. In a free country anyone should be able to enter into any agreement that they want to. It does not matter how odd the agreement might seem.

The Framers thought that this was important enough to mention it in the constitution. Article I Section 8 states: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…” This was intended to keep the government out of your business when you are dealing with contracts.

If someone sits down with an employer that person has a right to make what ever agreement that they want to with that employer. If there is a meeting of the minds, an offer and acceptance, consideration, both parties are not crazy and the agreement is not illegal then you have an enforceable contract. If we want a free society then we do not want government to be able to interfere with your right to contract.

Both sides must come to agree as to what is expected of the other party. The employer might indicate that they expect a certain function to be performed. They might also expect you as the employee to sing and dance at 1:00PM every day. They might also expect you to refrain from bringing a firearm on the property.

The employee must also indicate what he or she expects. The employee after listening to the employer’s expectations might require a certain amount of money in order for the agreement to be acceptable. Or the employee might find the terms completely unacceptable and choose not to enter into an agreement. Likewise the employer might find that the employee’s monetary requirements unacceptable and choose not to enter into an agreement.

Absent of an employment contract for an extended period of time both parties have a right to continue their association or discontinue it at any time if they no longer find that the terms are acceptable. No one is being forced to do anything or denied any rights. Both parties should not have their right to contract infringed upon.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I agree with RKG and the position he takes here.
Let’s look at it from another angle. In a free country anyone should be able to enter into any agreement that they want to. It does not matter how odd the agreement might seem.

I doubt many would agree that in a free country, individuals should be able to enter into contracts agreeing that all matters of contract interpretation rest only with the landlord and not the courts, or that an non-govt employer can institute it's own justice system complete with imprisonment and corporal punishment. If you accept that premise, the only matter is one of where you draw the line.

Some drawing of the line are a bot odd - for example, in MA, an apartment tenant cannot agree to pay his own water bill.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Cato:

Problems with your premise in the real world are as follows (please keep this focused on large companies only):

- When hired, you do NOT get to negotiate the terms really (in any large company). Only exception I've ever seen has been for executives.

- When hired, you sign a form agreeing to abide by the company rules current AND FUTURE, without EVER having seen them first.

These are strictly one-sided contracts, where both parties aren't allowed to negotiate in good faith. When I bought my house and broke my apartment lease, my attorney told me that numerous provisions of my lease were unenforceable as it was not a negotiated contract between two parties with consensual agreement. Like above, I never got to see a copy of the lease (to read or keep) until the day I moved in.

Defending yourself in a wrongful release is expensive and I wouldn't trust a judge or jury in this part of the US on a gun-related case. Too many people brainwashed and incapable of reaching a just conclusion based only on the facts, without prejudice.

 

[MaverickNH]

The Framers thought that this was important enough to mention it in the constitution. Article I Section 8 states: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…” This was intended to keep the government out of your business when you are dealing with contracts.

If someone sits down with an employer that person has a right to make what ever agreement that they want to with that employer. If there is a meeting of the minds, an offer and acceptance, consideration, both parties are not crazy and the agreement is not illegal then you have an enforceable contract. If we want a free society then we do not want government to be able to interfere with your right to contract.

Maybe you are adding a strict Liberatarian perspective to the discussion? As I was listening to the debate on illegal immigrants on NPR this morning, one illegal said that they are willing to work with toxic materials that other Americans are not willing to touch, as some just need to make enough money to eat.

Is this the sort of free agreement you are speaking of in your point? Or perhaps I am not taking your point correctly, and you are not going so far. By "and the agreement is not illegal" are you referring to agreements constituting a legally binding agreement, or do you mean anyone can sign up for whatever they agree to, OSHA be damned?

I'm really not heckling you (yet) - just trying to make sure I get your point right.

 

[dwarven1]

If enough companies start losing (good) employees to companies that allow CCW at work, they will correct their policies.

Problem with that is that even in places like Texas or Tennessee, few enough people carry make this a possiblity. Face it, we're just not numerous enough.

 

[kevin9]

So, let's go a step beyond the company that prohibits anyone from bringing any and all weapons on company property, and talk about conditions of employment as well as private property. There are also those companies that prohibit employees from having any weapons during the conduct of company business, intending that employees contracted out or providing services to others no have weapons.

This could mean, that during customary and/or specific work hours, I could not carry or transport a gun, whether driving a company car

Up to here I agree that a company can prohibit carrying on my person when directly conducting company business as well as transportation in a company owned vehicle. Beyond this I do not.

or being reimbursed (or not) for mileage in a personal car.

For example, reimbursement does not turn my vehicle into their vehicle. It is merely repayment for business expenses, not a transfer of ownership of my personal property.

Again, I could not take the job or quit if a change in policy was instituted after hire, but is this my only recourse? Or are conditions of employment different from physical property restrictions?

LenS and Rob B have argued this point quite well. +1 to them

 

[joe6486]

I knew I should have sat this one out.

("Ready on the right?" "Ready on the left?" "Ready on the firing line." "Commence firing at RKG!")

You're handling it beautifully. From what I read I'm with you 100%.

 

[MaverickNH]

Letter to the NY Times Editor: (the best I could do in 150 words) No response from the authors of the study thus far on my letter to them...I'm not holding my breath.

Often, when I write a letter to the editor and they publish my name/city/state, I get silly anti-gun postcards/letters from senders - no threats, just nonsense and cartoons. Always anonymous - whimps.


"The editorial “Workplace Safety and the Gun Lobby” stated, “Workplaces that tolerate guns are five to seven times more likely to suffer homicides than job sites that ban firearms, according to a 2005 study in The American Journal of Public Health.” This editorial infers that studies prove more employees will be shot dead at work if they can carry guns during their workday. In reality, these researchers showed the risk of being killed at work is higher for workers of non-European ethnicity, employed in jobs like taxi and pizza delivery driver and bartender, who work alone at night, on weekends. This is not new news in the big city. This editorial calls to withhold from honest citizens, lawful means of self-defense during their workday, by negligently twisting the facts. The honest facts remain, as published by John Lott in “More Guns, Less Crime”, that legal carry of guns reduces crime."

 

[kevin9]

I agree with RKG and the position he takes here.

Let’s look at it from another angle. In a free country anyone should be able to enter into any agreement that they want to. It does not matter how odd the agreement might seem...

So by this logic companies should be able to practice racial, sexual, or religious discrimination if the employees to agree to it. That is clearly not the case, so why should the right to have my personal property (e.g. gun) within my personal property (e.g., car) be different?

 

[MaverickNH]

Searching about, I found the guy's CV - a long history of workplace violence research, with a turn toward (or against) guns only in the last few years.

I also dropped the fellow an email - I'll post if I get a response. (notice the appeal to social injustice as bait - but as the ends justify the means for these academic dupes of Sarah Brady, I'm sure he's willing to sacrifice a few cabbies to save the rest of us from ourselves)

"[section quoting the NY Times article] The public is being presented with an interpretation of your work as proving that, in companies not prohibiting guns on the premises, gunfire breaks out amongst employees and employees are shot and killed 5-7 times more frequently than in companies banning guns on the premises.

I don’t believe this is what you had concluded. The publication referenced did indeed disclaim knowledge of whether 1) the victim was killed by another employee, 2) the victim was shot to death. Am I reading your published work correctly?

In your prior publications, it appears that your work indicates occupations such as taxi driver, gas station attendant and pizza delivery drivers were victimized at a rate making them significant contributors to study outcomes. As well, it seemed that you had indicated companies with employees of non-European descent composed a significant part of the at-risk population. One of your recommendations was that solo work be considered an at-risk practice as well. These conclusions drive in directions inconsistent with the motives of the popular press in attempts to influence public/private policy debates.

It is indeed important to gain recognition that immigrants, who often take solo jobs in the services industries, such as taxi, gas station and fast-food/delivery, are at greater risk of fatal victimization. But is appears to be a misinterpretation of your work by the popular press to suggest that in companies that do not prohibit guns in a standard office environment, gunfire will break out more frequently among employees. This emphasis leaves the true victims unrecognized, furthering the harms of socioeconomic inequity, while distracting focus and action on other workplace environments not indicated as significant by the outcomes of your data gathering and analysis. In effect, your work is being used by others to further an agenda not supported by your conclusions.

How can this be corrected?"

I did indeed geta reply today, below, from the author. Sort of a "we just build the bombs, we don't drop them" answer.

Not quite fitting with the pre-digested text-bite in the last concluding lines of their paper: "The findings bear directly on policy for workplace safety. In light of the evidence, it is reasonable to question the costs and benefits of policies permitting firearms in the workplace." What they should have said was: "... it is reasonable to question employing people in workplaces where guns are frequently used in robberies", as most of their data came from late-night stick-ups of solo workers in the taxi, pizza delivery and "Stop & Rob" workplaces.


The author replies:

"To my reading, the editorial in the Times does not misrepresent the findings of the study we published in American Journal of Public Health in 2005. It says simply that workplaces that permitted guns were 5-7 times more likely to have killings, which is a concise, accurate account of what the study found. The editorial writer’s assertion that there is “no debate” as a result of our study is arguable, but it’s clearly his/her opinion. As a scientist, I tend to think that one study is rarely definitive, and that the issue should be studied in other places using other methods.

Future studies could certainly improve on ours. You are correct that we were not able to conduct analyses to identify possible differences in the perpetrators or motives of homicides in workplaces that did and did not allow guns. We do have data on the means of death and we know that over 80% of all of the deaths were caused by firearms. However, we did not look for differences in the frequency of firearm deaths between workplaces that did and did not allow guns, and when guns were used, we do not know who brought them to the workplace.

Unfortunately, authors have no control over the interpretation of their work once it is in the public domain. This particular study has been misrepresented by the NRA and perhaps by anti-gun interest groups, too, although I have not seen it myself. Such misrepresentation is regrettable, but it usually gets corrected as part of the public decision-making process.

Dana Loomis, PhD
Professor and Chair
Environmental and Occupational Health
School of Public Health / 274
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno NV 89557-0036, USA
Phone: +775-682-7103
Fax: +775-784-1340"

 

[RKG]

You're saying that one's employer has the right to violate an employee's 4th Amendment rights at will?

No, actually I'm saying that one's employer (assuming him to be a private person) has no capacity to violate anyone's 4th Amendment rights. Why? Because the 4th Amendment only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures made by the government (and, to be specific, by the federal government).

Be glad of this: if the 1st Amendment applied to private individuals, you'd have to let some liberal wimp post a political sign on your front lawn.