Employer property ban

[LBaker]

Really? So a local LGS can't make an LTCF a condition of employment? Fail.

It's a memo not the proposed legislation. I'm betting his proposal is that a LTCF is not a disqualifation for employment. I'll ask him tomorrow...

[mosseater]

Prevalent? I'd be willing to bet a cookie that 99% of Americans have never seen any more workplace violence than shoving to get in line at the cafeteria.

Correct. And even less have seen ND's. Thanks for making my point. IOW, why does it matter beyond warm and fuzzy? Both are statically near zero. What is the point of disarming law-abiding citizens? I admit I don't know, but I'll bet if you check statistics of workplace violence, you'll find all violence as a category is actually pretty high. Whereas, negligent discharges and accidental shootings in the workplace don't even have a catagory. I see mouth battles virtually every week. They don't amount to anything, but you can hear them across the plant, especially in this politically charged time we're living in. One never knows when it will go beyond words.

[Grey Bearded One]

I admit I don't know, but I'll bet if you check statistics of workplace violence, you'll find all violence as a category is actually pretty high.

When I think of workplace violence, I think of worker on worker but OHSA includes customer/patient on worker.

OSHA says that in 2010 there were 506 workplace homicides which would include cops being killed and convenience store clerks killed during robberies. They further claim that 2 million Americans claim to be victims of workplace violence each year.

There are roughly 140,000,000 Americans with jobs so that 1.5% of American workers have been victims of workplace violence. Homicides are roughly 0.00036% of the workforce.

What is workplace violence? An angry customer throwing the raw cheeseburger at a Wendy's clerk is counted the same as the factory loan shark breaking your fingers. I couldn't find any numbers for worker on worker violence. However, I've been working for many years in offices, restaurants, factories, and other places and I've only seen one incident of workplace "violence" which was two guys shoving each other in the parking lot because one called the other a dick.

[phoenix01]

My employer has a "no weapons" policy. Of course, since I work in Maryland...

[tabasco_joe]

If a company has a policy that allows employees to CC in the workplace does the company have any responsibility for injuries of innocent bystanders from a CCing employees bullets? Either by ND, AD, or even in a defensive use? My guess is that the company lawyers would think so and factor this into the recommendations to the company's policies.

[Blown]

What you're doing is allowing fear of financial liability to override all other considerations. What happens if a disgruntled employee decides to go postal? He isn't going to comply with your policy. Now you're morally (if not financially) liable for anyone who is injured or killed because your policy prevented them from defending themselves. Will you be able to live with yourself if that happens?

To answer your question, yes, I would. I didn't create the rules of the game, but I have to play by them. A large judgement in a civil suit could put many companies out of business, mine included. If our insurance company dictates we must have a no firearms policy, I'm going to comply. Our business has to compete, just like anyone else. Permitting firearms on company property would necessitate finding a different carrier and raise our premiums significantly, and that expense has to be paid for somehow. Would our employees volunteer a pay cut to offset the difference? Hell no. The added expense would have to be passed onto the customer, which would hurt business and cost jobs. The most important thing I need to ask myself with every decision I make on the job is "What is the best thing for the company?" Of course, I would prefer it if the question was "What is the best thing for me and / or our employees?" But that's simply not reality. Employee satisfaction and welfare is critical to me, but the company has to come first. Otherwise, there won't be any employees. Being an advocate for 2A rights is hugely important to me, but it's not paramount. My family and livelihood are two of the very few things that mean more to me. As I said, I have no desire to enforce the policy (and don't), but our litigious legal system demands it be in place. If an employee legally brings a firearm to work, keeps it hidden in his vehicle and keeps his mouth shut, fine by me and no one will be the wiser. God forbid some lunatic shows up and starts popping off rounds, I'll be the first one to put my life on the line to try and defend a co-worker. If you want to blame someone, blame the legislators that set the terms and the frivolous attorneys that exploit them, not the guy who's stuck trying to avoid liability in addition to complying with the DEP, OSHA, DLI, township, and others all while paying the highest corporate tax rates in the world and trying to make a living.

[Lendog]

this guy should of been givin a promotion insted of gettin shit canned..... http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...d-robbery.html

[obo2000]

The company that I work for recently changed their policy to read similar to "unless local laws expressly permit; you may not possess a firearm in your locked personal vehicle on company property". I think this is a step in the right direction. However I also believe that if something were to happen in the building, if I responded as in the previous post I to would probably suffer the same fate. Instead of Hero would be decimated to Zero. Just my $.02.

[Ewussor]

If our insurance company dictates we must have a no firearms policy, I'm going to comply. Our business has to compete, just like anyone else. Permitting firearms on company property would necessitate finding a different carrier and raise our premiums significantly

Would you mind quantifying "significantly"? Have you actually shopped for coverage that does not require you to have such a policy?

I too own a business. My total insurance costs are less than 0.2% of my revenues. My coverage doesn't requires a no-firearms policy. But if it did, I would immediately be shopping for different coverage, and even if it cost 50% more, it simply wouldn't be a significant factor to my bottom line.

Being an advocate for 2A rights is hugely important to me, but it's not paramount. My family and livelihood are two of the very few things that mean more to me.

Back in the 1770s, a small percentage of the population decided that that liberty was more important than their family or their livelihood. That is what gave us a free country, for a while.

[Remington788]

I too own a business. My total insurance costs are less than 0.2% of my revenues. My coverage doesn't requires a no-firearms policy. But if it did, I would immediately be shopping for different coverage, and even if it cost 50% more, it simply wouldn't be a significant factor to my bottom line.
.

What type of business, if you don't mind my asking?
I don't want the name or anything.
Just was wondering if it was someplace where guns were central (ie a gun shop) or more of a personal preference.