Employer Policies the new gun control.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'm curious if the OP still works for SafeWay? Several present tense comments regarding income and employment would suggest so....

I wonder how SafeWay would feel about a current employee attempting to organize a boycott against them? I don't think they'd feel too warm and fuzzy....

[Don P]

Isn't that what we will call biting the hand that feeds you. Maybe he's even on face book doing this. Bye,bye job then.

[Aguila Blanca]

It's now 11:05 p.m. for me. Sneaking up on 25 hours since the post, and he still has not been back to look at it. I suspect he's just hitting every gun-related site on the Internet and has no real interest in discussing the merits of his issue.

[ltc444]

Company policy, he was aware of the policy, he violated the policy, Shut up and be thankful he still has a job.

[Wyoredman]

It's now 11:05 p.m. for me. Sneaking up on 25 hours since the post, and he still has not been back to look at it. I suspect he's just hitting every gun-related site on the Internet and has no real interest in discussing the merits of his issue.

^+1 Exactly! These type are just anoying, at best.

[thallub]

If the OP was looking for support for his actions it was not forthcoming.

[Mike Irwin]

Guys, no need to speculate on the poster's motives beyond what he's posted in his first post.

It's off topic.

If you have a problem with the OPs motives, hit the report post button.

[Roland Thunder]

As if carrying a gun to a company function in violation of company policy wasn't enough to get one fired, advocating a boycott of one's own employer, over the internet, no less, certainly is.

The OP should hope his employer doesn't get wind of this.

[44 AMP]

It's a sad but true fact that many companies consider their employees slaves who get a wage. Check their company guidelines and policies carefully and see.

Many now include language about "conduct that reflect poorly on the company image" or some such. You are theirs, 24hrs a day, as far as that is concerned, but you only get paid for the hours actually worked.

Its not often publically touted, and seldom is enforced (that we hear about, anyway), but with the language in some company rules allow you to be disciplined or discharged for a huge number of things you might do (including some totally legal things), ON YOUR OWN TIME!!!!!

Its not all just what happens on company property while you are on the clock. The devil is in the details, and what they tell you, and what they write, and by accepting employment, you agree to can be vastly differnt things.

One comany I ran accross had in its official rules that "employees are forbidden to posess weapons, except in the course of their official duties". And that was all it said, other than listing the punishment for breaking the rule. SO, I asked, and of course they said, "why, no, this doesn't mean you can't own a gun at home...." But that isn't what was written, and added to the rule about "detrimental to company image" (which was a 24/7 thing), they could, should they wish, enforce the penalty agains employee gun owners.

After all you voluntarily agreed to abide by their rules. ALL of them.

As to the OP, he broke a company rule. Thats clearcut as far as I can see. How and why he did it, machts nichts. He's lucky he wasn't fired outright. If your company has a rule about no guns, then you better assume it applies to ALL company functions, at ALL company locations (owned or rented), at ALL times (on or off the clock). Anything else if foolish pollyanaism. And as Forest Gump said, "stupid is as stupid does..."

[shortwave]

I'm sure Safeway has specific rules regarding having weapons on their property period. On or off the clock.

Hope you enjoyed your one week, unpaid vacation.

[Washington Doc]

starting over

[Washington Doc]

starting over

[Washington Doc]

I did enjoy my week off. I got a lot accomplished during that time, thanks for inquiring Shortwave. The missing paycheck sure sucked before the holidays, I'll admit, and I did lose some sleep over the whole thing, but I still got a lot of things done around that house that needed to get done. I've mentioned it before, Safeway has a clear policy about guns and employees, just not about civilians and guns and when you're not an employee, but a civilian. My arguement in that regard is probably why I didn't get fired.

[ThorInc]

You have answered you own question when you posted this: "in my house I make the rules".

[wally626]

I assume Safeway is a publicly traded corporation. Buy a share of stock and go to the annual meeting. Find out what the procedures are for making motions to the board. Make some supporting employees rights to carry weapons on the job. Your chances of getting anywhere are pretty small, like most such efforts, but if you can get enough support eventually the board will consider it. Getting enough support to pass the board probably means buying or getting voting rights to 51% of the outstanding stock, but you have to start somewhere.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We've had this discussion before many times - so your insights are not new.

How to change it? Lobby for legislation that disallows companies to control people's behavior that is not directly concerned with their employment.

However, that is antithetical to some views of employer, private property rights.

Recall the massive opposition to the Civil Rights act which still is mentioned by some (even candidates). A no gun ban by employers is the same idea.

The general public accepted that stopping discrimination trumped being the king of your business. Convince folks to pass legislation that trumps other employer rights - might be an interesting business, capitalist vs. populist/rights argment nuance given what's happening with the candidates lately.

As far as the snarky remarks - not needed, bad idea to continue them..

[MLeake]

And you were making a political point, so you brought about a reaction you had every reason to expect.

The problem with your expectation of sympathy is that it's hard to argue that our own rights should be respected, if we don't respect the rights of others to manage their own property. Kind of a Catch-22.

So, while I agree that I'd rather see employers not put bans in place, I can't really fault them until such time as statutory law or case law develops that holds them harmless in cases where employees take armed defensive action against a crime. Expecting them to do other than they are doing is unrealistic, unless the government so indemnifies them.

Your political energies would be better expended on the legislatures, not on your employer.

[Sarge]

Free country, Doc. Nobody's telling you where to live or work. Sometimes you gotta vote with your feet.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Making employers immune to suit for the actions of their employees in using their firearm is crucial.

Besides in self-defense gone awry, one has to consider the armed employee going nuts.

Both points are made in the discussion by lawyers for reasons why employers shouldn't allow carry.

Internet hero shoots innocent in a SD gun fight.
Crazed boy friend employee shoots female ex-GF employee with legally carried gun.

That's what they worry about.

[Wyoredman]

Washington Doc, Thanks for finally answering the questioons asked by other members and clarifying some points. I think that legitimate discussions such as these are important.

So, I do agree that it is frustrating when the "MAN" says you can't have a gun on his property. But, personally, if I couldn't live with those rules, I wouldn't take money from him in the form of a paycheck. I think I would look for employment elsewhere. Until I found it, I would follow the rules.

BTW, I'm in my 40's.

[Powderman]

Again, we're a little off topic. How to change Corporate America to accept the 2nd amendment. This can be read as how to change employers to accept the 2nd amendment. Or, how to guarantee our rights to firearms in a future of corporate ownership.
Washington Doc is offline Report Post

Friend, it isn't going to happen. Why? Because if we FORCE someone to accept OUR version of what should happen on THEIR property, that makes us the bad guys.

One huge part of the arguments concerning the right to keep and bear arms has always been based on old English Common Law. This concerns the part where we (gun owners) maintain hat our right to keep firearms on our own property is sacrosanct. I believe that the common quote goes along the lines of, "the roof might be caved in, rain might come through the roof, but not even the King of England dares cross the threshold" without the owner's permission.

Thus, it would logically follow that if WE have the sovereign right to kep and bear arms on OUR property that others have the sovereign right to tell us that they don't want OUR firearms on THEIR property.

And we must comply--isn't this what the basis of personal freedom entails? As we so often point out, I might add.

Bottom line: We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to do so publicly, if we choose. The remedies we have to enforce our rights to keep and bear arms on public property are enumerated by our own Constitution: We can petition the government, and have favorable laws placed into effect; we can hold or declare a referendum to remove onerous laws from the books, or we can recall those in office that we, the people, find are deficient in their duties.

But the day when we can FORCE another entity to accept our views on THEIR private property is the day that this great Nation ceases to exist.

[Tom Servo]

Crazed boy friend employee shoots female ex-GF employee with legally carried gun.

That's what they worry about.

Exactly. The folks who set the policies listen to the lawyers. For decades, the lawyers listened to folks who told them that an armed employee is a dangerous employee.

I know; I've been there and talked to them. A day-trader named Mark Barton went on a shooting spree in two businesses in Atlanta in 1999. I had a friend at one of them, and afterward, she showed me a revised policy on "recognizing the potentially violent employee." Factors included talking about guns or reading about guns at work. "Interest in the 2nd Amendment" was right next to "overthrowing the government."

(Incidentally, many of the "studies" cited, or were authored by, folks in the Brady Campaign and VPC)

This wasn't an isolated occurrence, or something done on impulse. I've seen the template used by several human resources divisions. The very mentality pervades a large part of the corporate world.

One guy openly carrying a gun to an employee picnic isn't going to change an attitude that thoroughly entrenched in the corporate psyche. It takes time, energy, and education. Even if things do turn around in some places, you'll still have the lawyers whispering prophecies of dire consequences, potential liability, and general unpleasantness in others.

In the corporate world, those whispers carry a great deal of weight.

[BillCA]

I have to agree with Messrs Meyer and Servo here. The legality and liability issue is going to play a much bigger role than corporate politics or their opinion of the 2A.

We have to acknowledge that legal issues are built upon foundations of precedents. And currently those precedents say that the employer controls employee access to firearms and who may enter the property with firearms. Thus, if an exception is made for an employee and known to the employer, the employer can be held liable for any injury caused by the employee or weapon. If you carry concealed, the lawsuit will still say the employer knew or should have known you were armed and failed to take prophylactic action. It will take legislation to remove or reduce the employer's liability

Property rights are only one facet of the issue but one that is a 2-edged sword. Recent legislation and rulings in a few states have trumped property rights by allowing employees to store firearms in their parked vehicles in the company parking lot. This isn't seen as a "civil rights" victory by businesses. Not when they may still be sued because they knew "Doc" always put a pistol in the trunk of his car every day and did nothing about it before he went "postal". At best, we should insist it was a victory of "practicality" or "common sense" since one could always kennel a guard dog, but there are no facilities for locking up a firearm between work and home.

Change will require the following:

• Legislation to remove or limit the employer's liability for the employee's actions during lawful defense of self or others.
• Legislation that limits employer liability if the employee is licensed and does not make threats in the workplace.
• A public relations campaign to counter those who complain that there is "something wrong" with a person who feels a need to carry a firearm.
• Legislation that requires employers to treat off-duty employees like other customers or visitors - if they allow customers with firearms, then off-duty employees are also allowed to carry.
• Legislation to force the burden of liability onto the person precipitating the illegal action instead of the deepest pockets.

[Uncle Buck]

WOW! I have to agree with most of the posters here. (And I am 45-46, maybe 47... Old age affects my memory.)

I have a friend who does not allow gum in his home. Why? Gum has never killed anyone? When I finish chewing it I always dispose of it correctly. He does not want it stuck under the furniture. It is his property, his rules.

It is easier for him to enforce no gum with everyone than have to explain to his kids why Uncle Buck can chew it. I guess I could just give up on him and not see him any longer. I choose to dispose of my gum before I get to his yard.

But I do have to tell you, if you worked for me when I owned my repair shop and tried to get everyone to stop coming to my shop because I suspended you for breaking one of my rules, you would no longer have a job.

The smart thing to do would have been to call and ask "Hey, I am off duty, will I be allowed to carry my handgun with me to this event?"

[Double Naught Spy]

Yet, I still don't like it when my freedoms (freedom, the thing people have died all around the world for, for ages upon ages) are taken away. Freedom may not be taken away in a bold approach as it hasn't worked well in the past, but it will be taken away piece by piece as quietly as possible, until it's all "gray" and "technicalities" will mean the end of rights. Technically you can own an incendiary bullet, but it's against the law to shoot it. Same for a silencer. You can legally build and own one non-EPA standardized vehicle. Technically, some easement belongs to some agency so you can't walk along it without a $250,000 fine and upto five years in prison. What's next? Technically the majority of the materials in your house were furnished/manufactured by Capco Corporation, so they actually own your house, not you. Or technically, city limits where expanded without public notification, so your house and property now belong to the city and they can vote you out of the community. How many lawyer derived technicalities are out there now-a-days? How much worse will it get? How far will the pendulum swing before people say "B.S." and not put up with it? Technically, even though not stated in my policy handbook, I'm an employee for life and technically, there's no end point for those policies in my personal life. Oh, by-the-way I was told by Safeway that I can shop on Safeway property on my day off (at my own store too) with a firearm and that's OK. There's an angry rant for those of you who wanted it.

No, you started ranting with your opening post.

Are ages posted on these things? I'd like to know some ages of the people leaving replies. I sense a lot of older folks who have been either whipped into submission by their own experiences OR (don't be mad, there's an "or") they've simply lived long enough to know when there's a fight to be fought and when to walk away. I know that my personal fight with Safeway will go nowhere. That's why I wasn't asking for legal help or if I have a case or not. I want to know if anybody has ideas on how to change Corporate America before we all end up rolling over and letting CEO's walk all over us.

You sure do a lot of posturing and calling for action for a person who is suposedly just wanting some ideas on changing corporate America.

Whipped into submission? Wow. Before you go trying to change corporate America, first get some years under your belt and try running corporate America. You want to change something you don't understand and your rants are all over the board and don't show any clear focus. Maybe that is an age thing, as you indicated.