• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

My new company's policy on searches/firearms

Y

YogSothoth

Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
99
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Ever since I started at my new company, I've been looking for their policy regarding firearms and the workplace. Having found nothing in the Employee Handbook, I felt somewhat secure in bringing my Glock to work, as long as I locked it up in the car. Yet I still didn't believe that a large company that was a survivor of the dot.com boom wouldn't have some sort of misguided policy discriminating against those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, so after some searching I finally found a separate "policy" document. It's all pretty standard "hiding our head in the sand" kind of stuff, but the following entries caught my attention:

Note: the following is listed under the title "Workplace Violence" (emphasis is mine):

*** does not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees...This list of behaviors, while not inclusive, provides examples of conduct that is prohibited.

  • Causing physical injury to another person;
    Making threatening remarks;
    Aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress;
    Intentionally damaging employer property or property of another employee;
    Possession of a weapon while on company property or while on company business;
    Committing acts motivated by, or related to, sexual harassment or domestic violence.

Reporting Procedures
Any potentially dangerous situations must be reported immediately to a supervisor or the Human Resource Department...While we do not expect employees to be skilled at identifying potentially dangerous persons, employees are expected to exercise good judgment and to inform the Human Resource Department if any employee exhibits behavior that could be a sign of a potentially dangerous situation. Such behavior includes:

  • Discussing weapons or bringing them to the workplace;
    Displaying overt signs of extreme stress, resentment, hostility, or anger;
    Making threatening remarks;
    Sudden or significant deterioration of performance;
    Displaying irrational or inappropriate behavior.

Happily, the company also has a search policy:

It is the policy of the Company, when deemed necessary by management, for authorized persons to search and inspect both TMP property and personal items, including vehicles, brought onto TMP property. Refusal to cooperate in a search, inspection, or investigation will result in a disciplinary action up to and including termination.

The search policy states that it can search:

All *** property, including lockers, desks, or other spaces individually assigned.

All Personal Property brought onto TMP property, including:
  • a. Pockets
    b. Purses/wallets
    c. Briefcases
    d. Cars/trucks
    e. Shopping bags/boxes
    f. Removable clothing

So, effectively, every day I go into work, like so many others, I'm giving up all my consitutional rights to keep and bear arms as well as any reasonable expectation of privacy. I also really like the fact that simply by owning a handgun or even discussing gun ownership, I'm participating in "workplace violence".

I expected that such a policy might exist, still it kinda sucks to find it spelled out in a policy document.
 
TMP

When you consider that TMP is part of Monster Worldwide, and the president of Monster, Andrew McKelvey founded "Americans for gun safety" ... your basic self-proclaimed "middle of the road" firearms organization which never saw a ban it didn't like, this is not surprising.

What is surprising is that someone would get all the way to the point of being employed by Monster before learning of ithe corporate president's pet cause.
 
"So, effectively, every day I go into work, like so many others, I'm giving up all my consitutional rights to keep and bear arms as well as any reasonable expectation of privacy. I also really like the fact that simply by owning a handgun or even discussing gun ownership, I'm participating in "workplace violence". Y.S.

Well it's their company. Any business owner, large or small, has the right to determine what behaviors are acceptable on his or her property. You are not giving up your rights, YOU are choosing to relinquish certain rights to enter the property. It's a private business on private property. The owners can set the rules.

What I don't like is when companies don't tell you the rules upfront. Those workers out in Oklahoma got the shaft big time when there was an apparent change in policy regarding posessing firearms on their property and then the company sent dogs out in the parking lot to sniff out firearms (actually gun powder residue). Unfortunately too, your company uses the term weapon not firearm. Now what exactly is a weapon? Pens and shod foots can be dangerous weapons. Personally I can't fault anyone for not checking the firearms policies prior to employment...but might I respectfully suggest that you dust off your resume, let your feet do their thing and get the hell out of there when it is opportune.

All the best,

Mark
 
Workplaces

One would be hard pressed to find any large company today which does not have a gun ban - it's only a matter of how obvious they make it.

Any company which feels like like searching an employee's effects or vehicle is free to issue a "submit to be terminated" ultimatum at any time. Unless there is a violation of either an employment contract, race or age discrimination law, whistleblower statues or some other specific prohibited activity, employers can terminate at any time. Care to guess how many companies speficially state they cannot search your vehicle, person or effects in their company handbook?

Some of it is legal paranoia. If someone is found to have a gun at a place of employment corporate legal is likely to say "You have to terminate that person. If anything ever happens which could have been stopped by firing that individual, we'll lose big in the inevitable suit." I believe the term used is "failure to terminate."

Just look at Mucko. It is extremely unlikley that the firm (especially in MA) would lose a suit if ae employee/gun owner raised the issue of "but for company policy, I would have been able to stop the carnage." Now, consider the liability exposure if the employer knew Mucko brought a gun to work previously and did not terminate him. Contingency fee lawyers dream about that kind of case walking through their door.
 
mark056 said:
"So, effectively, every day I go into work, like so many others, I'm giving up all my consitutional rights to keep and bear arms as well as any reasonable expectation of privacy. I also really like the fact that simply by owning a handgun or even discussing gun ownership, I'm participating in "workplace violence". Y.S.

Well it's their company.
Click to expand...

Well, they can't say blacks and hispanics need not apply. Muslims leave you head scarfs at home.
 
We aren't allowed to have firearms on company property as well. But, as I work at a site where we rent the building. The parking lot isn't owned by the company. It's no different as if I parked across the street in the Stop and Shop parking lot.

I've asked. So as they would be able to search what I bring into the building, as even though we rent the building, they are EDS Offices. They can't search my car. So as long as we leave them in the car, we're OK.

And if we can't discuss firearms at work, half my office would have been fired by now as there are many in here that shoot.
 
You're absolutely right, Mark. While I understand that it is private property and it is their right to make the rules, I find it a bit unnerving that the simple act of discussing fireams is considered a form of workplace violence. As far as I'm concerned (and I know I'd lose if I ever had to fight the company about this kind of thing), my rights guaranteed by the Constitution supersede any company's attempts to restrict those rights. But, much like I do for a friend who's uncomfortable knowing that I might be carrying when I visit, I follow their rules/desires to the best of my ability.

Just like those other employees you mention, the policies were not disclosed before I signed the contract. Only the employee handbook was made available to me, the policy document was separate and only available to current employees on their intranet. I could have asked up front, but because of my experience at my last job, I'm not telling anyone here that I'm a gun owner. After what I read in the policy, I'm glad I made that decision otherwise I would have been comitting workplace violence before I even started, hehe.

Rob: I'm not sure where in my post I specified that I hadn't researched the executives of the company. Even knowing what side of the fence they're on, it doesn't make it any less disheartening to see such an invasive and restrictive policy laid out before your eyes after you've already joined the company. As I noted, I was pretty sure there was going to be such a policy, but because I didn't have access to the documents, nor did I want to even bring the subject of gun ownership up during a pre-hire meeting, I didn't know for sure how bad it was going to be. Forgive me if I'm misreading your post, but you were somewhat insulting in making your point, especially considering how many assumptions you were making.

Regardless, I'm less concerned about the political leanings of executives with whom I'll never interact than I am about how well they manage the company (and yes, I know their views will affect the workplace, but if the work is good and company is successful, I'll put up with what I must. That doesn't mean I can't vent about it, however). I'm more concerned about how well I'll mesh with the people with whom I'll work directly, and even then I cannot in good conscience accept that someone's political views or the activities they pursue outside of the company should be allowed to affect my working relationship with them. If my professional goals align with theirs, then what they think/do outside of work is irrelevant. If I start believing that what they do outside of the office should affect how I work with them, then I've done nothing but sink to the level of the policy-makers who consider dicussions involving firearms a form of workplace violence.
 
My company has a no firearm policy as well. I hate it, but I also think the owner of the company should have the right to make such a rule.
 
derek said:
My company has a no firearm policy as well. I hate it, but I also think the owner of the company should have the right to make such a rule.
Click to expand...

As much as it sucks and is completely stupid, regretably, yes, they do have that right.
 
That crazy "no talking about guns" rule freaked me out, YogSothoth. So I did some research on my company's policy today. Standard no-guns-aloud stupidness, but at least I haven't broken company policy by talking about guns.
 
No insule intended

I did not intend to insult anyone for not researching an employer.

My comment was about the fact that the affiliation of the president of Monster with the gun control movement has been a fairly big news item in the gun rights community - I was simply surprised that you had not seen this news coverage when his ploy with Americans for Gun Safety was getting a lot of coverage in the gun press and pro-gun internet groups.

I'll be glad to apologize for the accidental insult in person by providing the ammo if you ever feel like swinging by Hopkinton for some shooting.
 
Remember that in Massachusetts and most other states, in the absence of a written employment contract that specifies otherwise, all employement is essentially "at will". Thus, while your car might be parked across the street or on some other non-company property, they're free to terminate you if you balk at letting them search it. They could even fire you for declining to let them search your home for guns, for belonging to a gun club, the NRA or GOAL, for posting on this bulletin board or simply because the spirit of Louis XIII told them to last night.

Ken
 
Now this brings up an unusual situation. If one does want to find out about whether or not guns are banned, and not even allowed to be talked about, how would one go about it? It wasn't in the original emp. handbook you got, so....what do you do? "Um...just out of curiosity...are ALL the employee rules and regs in the handbook? Or are there any updates not in here?" <grin>

It does make it rather difficult, doesn't it?
 
Absolutely Lynne, it's a heck of a quandry. There is no mention of any kind of policy regarding firearms in the employee handbook, and that's the document that is included in the kit that comes with the offer letter. It took some searching to find the company's policy document, and I didn't want to ask anyone about it because I didn't want to lie about why I was looking. I eventually found it on one of the multiple intranet sites. I certainly didn't feel comfortable bringing up the subject of a firearms policy at the company, because I knew that it was going to be very restrictive and might make the staffing person freak out a bit. I'm glad I listened to my instinct before asking (that and learning the lesson the hard way at the last job where everyone had known me for three years or longer before I even mentioned getting my license). It strikes me as a bit silly that I feel like it's such a forbidden topic to discuss, but I guess one has to assume that ignorance leads to fear.

And I'm definitely an "At Will" employee, as it is stated in the employee handbook. Just like Ken said, they could terminate me for just about anything, but I'll follow the letter of their laws to avoid giving them excuses. More importantly, I'll do good work and not give them a reason to want to look for excuses to fire me in the first place :)

Thanks for the clarification, Rob. I was initially taken aback by your comment, but after thinking about it for a while I wasn't sure you meant it as an insult, which is why I prefaced my follow-up with the "Forgive me if I'm misreading your post" bit. It's sometimes hard to know how people intend a statement when you're dealing with just text and no actual face-to-face contact. I hope I didn't offend in turn. Thanks for the ammunition offer :)
 
Ken brings up a very good point regarding the "at will" status of most employees in Massachusetts. I know that people, especially on the conservative side, like to bash unions. I would respectfully submit however, that the unfettered control by management over the lives of employers was a primary reason that unions were established. While it is true labor has often gotten the upper hand in union situations, the same can be said for management in non-union situations. In an ideal world, I think, power between labor and management should be split so neither of the two factions have the upper hand...perpetual struggle. A sort of ying/yang dynamic.

Lynne, great point about the politicians up on Beacon Hill. The one question that I have about their attitudes towards firearms is: Are they promulgating these anti-gun views, or are they genuinely reflecting the views of their constituents ?

Regards,

Mark
 
Lynne said:
Now this brings up an unusual situation. If one does want to find out about whether or not guns are banned, and not even allowed to be talked about, how would one go about it? It wasn't in the original emp. handbook you got, so....what do you do? "Um...just out of curiosity...are ALL the employee rules and regs in the handbook? Or are there any updates not in here?" <grin>

It does make it rather difficult, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I'd think that if wasn't in the handbook and you were not notifies of these policies and you were fired for not complying, then you'd have a good case for reinstatement or at least be able to collect unemployment.
When a new policy/procedure (or change) comes out where I work, it's handed to you and you sign for it. Those signed receipts are some of the first documents entered into eveidence at disciplanary hearings.
 
Jon,

That is the way that many PDs work, I still have my PD issued policy manual downstairs. I did have to sign for it. Not sure that I had to sign for any of the changes over the 18 years, however.

However in industry it is very different (typically):
- Day 1 at DEC, 35-40 of us (new hires at the Mill) were herded into a room by HR, handed a pile of forms to fill out and then let loose on our departments (each provided a seeing-eye pigeon to help us find our way - inside joke only understood by those that ever worked/visited the Mill).
- Amongst the forms was a place to sign that you'd abide by the Policy Manual and any/all changes in the future! Nowhere in sight was a copy of said manual!! [This was also the case when I was hired at a Boston area college, although they may have given us a copy of their manual in the packet, not sure.]
- Employees were NOT given copies of the Policy Manual at DEC, they were told to see their supervisors if they wanted to look at it. It was up to the supervisors to keep their personal manual up to date.
- Since I was hired as a supervisor, within a few days/week I was given a manual. Said manual was very thin and had nothing about guns, knives, etc. in it when I was hired.
- Over my 13 years there, the manual grew to the point that it almost needed a second binder. Yes, guns, knives, and any weapons were forbidden per the Policy Manual during those years. Nobody signed for any changes, no special notices were issued when policy changes occurred, etc.

I'd guess that the above IS SOP in most of industry.
 
Oh ya, they make sure we have the updates and will even read them to us in Roll-Call.
I usually throw it all in the bottom of my locker and the binder is almost empty! I've even left them in the roll call room on the desk. The Training SGT told me one day that he was going to do inspections. I asked him when so that I could bring the box up to him so he could make sure it was all there. Result: No Inspections.
I guess that's why I have to "see the Captain" every now and again [shock]
 
We're not allowed to bring personal firearfms or ammo into my workplace. It gets ignored somewhat, though. Kind of a stupid policy, when there's Full Auto weapons in the building already. But if discussing firearms were banned and enforced, everyone would get fired, including ALL of management. Even my supervisor talks about guns, and he doesn't even own any.
 
JonJ said:
Oh ya, they make sure we have the updates and will even read them to us in Roll-Call.
I usually throw it all in the bottom of my locker and the binder is almost empty! I've even left them in the roll call room on the desk. The Training SGT told me one day that he was going to do inspections. I asked him when so that I could bring the box up to him so he could make sure it was all there. Result: No Inspections.
I guess that's why I have to "see the Captain" every now and again [shock]
Click to expand...

I knew that I liked you when I met you!! [twisted] [lol]

At DEC we went thru a period when the manual changes were coming fast and furious, oftentimes 15-30 pages of additions/changes. I would just stuff them in a corner until I got bored some day and then spend hours going thru them occasionally to put them in the book. My employees did count on me having an up to date copy when they had questions. For some reason they didn't like going to my boss to see his copy! [roll]
 
YogSothoth said:
And I'm definitely an "At Will" employee, as it is stated in the employee handbook. Just like Ken said, they could terminate me for just about anything, but I'll follow the letter of their laws to avoid giving them excuses. More importantly, I'll do good work and not give them a reason to want to look for excuses to fire me in the first place :)
Click to expand...
It is no accident that you offer letter either stated a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly salary but there was no mention of an offer for $xx per year ... unless it was of the form ".... which is equivalent to $xx on an annualized basis."

Employers are paranoid about doing anything whcih creates an implied employment contract - and they are aware of the possibility that making someone an offer of a job for "$xx per year" could be considered an implied one year employment contract.
 
Understand that if you come right out and ask, the answer will almost always be "no", regardless of what's actually in writing anywhere. (They'll probably correct the oversight now that you've pointed it out.) When in doubt, remember the old military axiom: It's always easier to get forgiveness that it is to get permission.

Ken
 
KMaurer said:
Understand that if you come right out and ask, the answer will almost always be "no", regardless of what's actually in writing anywhere. (They'll probably correct the oversight now that you've pointed it out.) When in doubt, remember the old military axiom: It's always easier to get forgiveness that it is to get permission.

Ken
Click to expand...
Not only that, but if there is no policy they will always write one.

Be very careful what you ask before you actually are processed in as an employee. I once had a formal job offer revoked because I asked if the company provided any financial assistance for grad courses - they told me they did not want to fund such things; were aware that other companies did; and felt they would be better off with an employee not interested in such a benefit. Relative to "gun questions" asking about an almost standard benefit in the technology industry would seem a relatively safe inquiry.
 
mark056 said:
Lynne, great point about the politicians up on Beacon Hill. The one question that I have about their attitudes towards firearms is: Are they promulgating these anti-gun views, or are they genuinely reflecting the views of their constituents ?
Click to expand...

Well...this is my own opinion Mark, but since you asked.... [wink] First, most people that are paranoid of guns are made that way due to the coverage they see on the news. The Hill folk (and by that I mean the ones who WANT their flock to depend on them) will knee jerk react to make it tougher and harder for us (or anyone else) to get a hand gun. As I stated before, the majority of us can actually THINK and we can see through the BS that they try to get away with. They are afraid of us because WE aren't the ones who put them into office. The flock only know what they hear and if their Rep says "Worry not, *I* will protect you with yet MORE laws!" they've been dumb downed enough that they believe them and keep re-electing them. The Hill folks WANT us to be needy. If we weren't, they wouldn't have a job.

No only that, but if they can disarm us, then they won't have to worry about any more revolutions. [roll]
 
Lynne,

Thank you very much for your reply. I especially liked your statement:"The Hill folks WANT us to be needy. If we weren't, they wouldn't have a job. " Ain't that the truth ?

Remember Jane Swift ? When she was a rep for Western Mass, she was a GOAL and NRA poster child, then she gets her stint in the corner office of 1 Ashburton Place, and she becomes gun-unfriendly. We could go on Swift bashing for hours, probably, but politicians of her ilk really scare me, professing to be pro-gun and then changing positions. As Lord Acton is to have said "absolute power, tends to corrupt absolutely"

Regards,

Mark
 
Mark,

They are political opportunists!

When she represented Western MA, most every family owns guns and hunts (outside some major cities and the communist college areas), she HAD to be pro-gun . . . or she would have been job-hunting.

When you are Gov or other statewide official, Boston calls the shots . . . the other cities/towns just pay the bills! Thus, you MUST be anti-gun.

A true politician has to be a chameleon in order to survive. They become very good at it . . . or they find another line of work!
 

Similar threads

Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
363
clampett
clampett
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
529
Broc
Broc
B Kings Firearms Ohio
Replies
4
Views
301
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
What are your silliest, most useless firearms.
4 5 6
Replies
177
Views
4K
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Bergen County Firearms lawyer
Replies
4
Views
245
GaryO
GaryO
Back
Top Bottom