Sigh- do we REALLY need to open the "property rights" discussion again?
Quote:
One parallel that comes to mind is workplace injuries. It's legal for companies to require a worker to carry around big boxes all the time, but that doesn't necessarily get them off the hook if the worker gets injured.
|
Not even close. A workplace cannot make you carry boxes around all day, unless they take reasonable steps to prevent injuries. See OSHA requirements. Perhaps employers that deny employees the right to carry should be required to provide armed security. After all, simply putting up a sign that reads "Massacres are prohibited on Company property" is not a reasonable step to prevent violence.
A closer parallel would be an employer that prohibits employees from owning or having a Bible, or prevents a female employee from wearing or possessing a bra while on company property. Perhaps a company rule stating that overtime doesn't start until you have worked 80 hours.
To answer the OP:
If a company were sued (an many have been) they simply claim "third party interference" and assert that they have no control over the criminal acts of a third party, pointing out that they gave all employees a "violence in the workplace" class and sensitivity training as a reasonable way to prevent violence, all the while ignoring the fact that a "defenseless victim zone" emboldened the criminal, and also ignoring that the majority of workplace violence is not perpetrated by disgruntled employees, but by outsiders in robberies and other violent crimes.