by Al Vreeland
In these pages, we try―often ham-handedly―to infuse a little humor into the very real workplace dilemmas you face on a daily basis. When we first conceived this article, obvious redneck gun jokes were, well, obvious. But the recent massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, has left us humorless, while recent events in several state capitals have left us dumbfounded. Multiple state legislatures are considering a law that would give employees the right to bring guns onto their employer’s property―regardless of the employer’s policy. That is a very, very bad idea.
What’s all the fuss about?
Politicians attach names to legislation that are hard to oppose, such as the Freedom, Fairness, and Fuzzy Kitten Act. When it comes to guns at work, proponents call it a “parking lot” law. It would require employers to allow employees to keep guns only in their cars on the employer’s property. What could possibly go wrong with that? A lot. Few employers have TSA-level security screening in their facilities; a gun in the parking lot is just a few quick steps from becoming a gun in a supervisor’s face.
As our readers know, most folks define themselves by their work. When asked about themselves, people’s first response usually involves their occupation and, sometimes, whom they work for. Most employees are proud of what they do, and almost all believe they’re good at what they do, even if they aren’t. As a consequence, when employees fall short at work, they take it very personally. They may consider their self-worth under attack and, more important, their ability to provide for their family at risk. Unfortunately for some, the insult to their dignity may be too much and lead to a violent response.
According to Representative Craig Ford, who sponsored the Alabama guns-at-work bill, “You’re not violating a person’s property rights just by keeping a gun locked in your vehicle.” We wonder if Representative Ford would like to be standing in an HR manager’s office when an employee who just got sacked is within a few yards of his car―which happens to contain a loaded weapon. The car may be locked, but a very angry ex-employee has the keys to it.
Bottom line
In our view, the Legislature has no business telling employers they must allow guns on their property. That decision should be left to each employer’s judgment. They know their workforce. For some, safety during the work commute may be a valid concern. Others may leave directly from work and head to the hunting camp during deer season. But for many employers, it may not be worth the risk when a gun in a glove box makes the short trip up the sidewalk and into a manager’s office.
Al Vreeland is a founding member and Managing Shareholder Lehr Middlebrooks & Vreeland in Birmingham, Alabama, where the state’s Senate is currently considering legislation that would prevent most employers from barring workers from transporting and storing firearms and ammo at work. Al has represented employers in the entire range of employment litigation from Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, OSHA and ERISA to claims under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. He may be contacted at avreeland@lehrmiddlebrooks.com.
The article itself seems to focus on keeping government out of regulating this issue for business–a good position.
But why then title it as you did? This is incongruent. Was it to get more eyes, or are you really trying to send a message that guns shouldn’t be in the workplace?
What the employer must then decide is this: Is the organization confident in limiting a natural right, a God given right and a constitutional right of their employees to protect themselves from harm?
“Redneck”…really? You seem to be perpetuating an image that gun owners are backwards hillbillies not to be trusted. It’s already legal in a few states for employees to keep concealed, locked weapons in their car. You don’t see daily workplace rampages in those states. Plus, if an employee is that enraged then he/she will just make the drive home and back to use the weapon (you’re just delaying the inevitable by a few minutes). I think most employees would prefer to protect themselves as they see fit (rather than using scissors to defend themselves against an attacker as DHS suggests).
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your intentions, but I agree with Dave. It appears you’re advocating against guns in the workplace rather than framing the needed dialogue between employers (and their rights as business owners) vs. employees (and their constitutional rights).
I was raised hunting and participating in shooting sports. I believe in our right to keep & bear arms. That said, as an HR professional I’m conflicted about allowing employees to bring firearms onto work property. On the one hand your vehicle is your own property, on the other it is parked in the employer’s lot and the close proximity does pose risks if an employee were angry or mentally unstable.
Given the above, I also believe that the employer needs to take reasonable actions to ensure the safety of its employees. My employer has unarmed security after hours, which clearly says to me that it is more concerned with protecting property than it is in protecting its most valuable asset – people!
Although the tragedy in Newtown was devestating, it was not caused by a lack of gun control regulations. In fact, Connecticut already has some the toughest gun control legislation in the nation.
It was a mentally ill person who caused harm to those children and families, and a mother who used poor judgement when managing the reality of her son’s illness.
I would welcome firearms in the workplace with proper training in the event this type of incident happens again.
As a side note: the TSA is by no means the “standard” for security checks – they are FAR from it. They have yet to stop an attack with their search methods, and resort to checking the diapers of 90 year old women (to the point of harrassment) to demonstrate their “abilities”.
I did not know that carrying a gun was a God given right. I know it’s a constitutional right, but as an HR person who deals with “angry” employees, I don’t want to take a chance on someone going to their car to “get their gun” when things don’t go their way. It doesn’t always have to be the employee who was terminated, but it could be the employee who may feel like he’s being mistreated and picked on by others; it may be the employee who has a “beef” with their co-worker; it may be the supervisor who has a concern about one of their employees who threatened them; it may be someone who belives in the “I’ll get them before they get me theory of solving problems. This list could go on-and-on. In light of all the recent tragedies, I get it; I want to feel safe at work, but what I know for sure is I wouldn’t feel safe knowing there are guns, in cars, on the parking lot, that may decide to invite themselves into the office because their owner is having a bad day. That could ruin my day!
I live in Oklahoma, which recently became an “Open Carry” state. I personally have a concealed carry license, and choose for the most part to not carry openly, though I have been granted that right. Oklahoma is a very “Gun Friendly” state, for which I am glad and supportive. I never leave home without my pistol. Not that I am particularly afraid in general, but bad things happen to good people every day, and carrying a firearm for personal protection helps to level the playing field if someone decides that I am to be their “next victim”. I support carrying firearms, even in the workplace, but I agree, you must know your workforce. When you terminate or even just counsel an employee, you should have an idea of their mental state and be ready to defend yourself in whatever manner necessary if you feel threatened. I agree that individual business should have some say whether to allow firearms at their place of business,since they SHOULD know their environment and personnel, but am torn between that and my personal right to defend myself. There are already restrictions on where you are not allowed to carry, such as hospitals, which I believe most licensed carriers abide by. This will be a tough call given recent events across our great nation, and should not be taken lightly by those on either side of the question.
How about every business could hang a sign out front that says, “”Attn Psychos: No one in this building is armed. You are free inflict harm with no resistance.” This is gone way to far — thinking you can control Psychos with laws!!
As with most such policies, saying that employees cannot have a firearm in their car is nothing more than a hedge against lawsuits. There is no practical way of enforcing such a rule unless you want to search every car and, in some states, the employer may run afoul of castle doctrine (a persons car is included in many stand-your-ground statutes).
Beyond that, if an employee or former employee is bent on shooting the place up, a policy in a filing cabinet saying “You can’t do that” is probably not going to deter him. These policies are for the benifit of insurance rates and little more.
I work in HR and am responsible for 14 different schools in the public school system in Utah. The concealed carry law here allows persons, including employees, to carry concealed firearms into public schools. It is illegal for schools to forbid it. Personally, I am pleased with this legislation. Because of this law, I feel that our students have a greater chance of survival in the event an incident similar to those experienced by other schools occurs in our state by an unlawful firearm user. It is highly probable that someone at our school, a parent or a staff member will lawfully resist the attacker with equal force before the authorities arrive, likely saving lives.
We deal with employment issues daily and terminate employees on occasion as any employer would. In our case, they may actually have a firearm in their pocket or under their shirt.
It is the treatment of the employee prior to and during a termination that makes the difference. If you use appropriate progressive discipline, the employee essentially fires him/herself and they are usually prepared for it emotionally. They know what the next step is because you did your job as a manager all along.
In the case where an incident compels immediate termination, we do our best to handle it professionally and compassionately, knowing the risk is present. We are cognizant of the fact that things can go south pretty quickly and thankful it has not thus far. I am not naive to he fact that some persons react in anger anyway, have issues with specific persons at the school (company), or are simply angry at the employer or the world for that matter. These things are all considered.
Even without these laws, those persons who may ordinarily become violent using a firearm may leave and come back with one anyway (which has happened a number of times). The advantage employers and managers have is that angry employees or former employees do not know if we are also carrying a firearm at work today!
This is the most ridiculous thing I ever read…..do you seriously think they aren’t in the glovebox anyway? Do you search your employees’ vehicles? I’ve been in the manager’s shoes and understand the risks but do you really think a policy saying you can’t do it is going to make anyone safer? C’mon man!
Yes, yes good idea…no guns allowed at work; that way when someone (who does’t care about laws rules or regulations) wants to go ‘postal’ at work he/she will read a sign that says no guns allowed and go back home…wait that won’t happen. They will kill any and all people they want until…the police (responsible people) with guns will show up and take care of the situation…OR if ‘postal’ employee comes to work to find a potentially armed work force they might have second thoughts…most of the people that do these shooting are cowards and attack places with out guns and kill themselves as soon as a threat or the police arrive….just a college educated HR Mgr ‘redneck’ talking. This article is trash and should be removed.
As one of the owners of a small construction company,(60+) employees, along with my 2 brothers we encourage gun ownership by our employees. Our company policy only restricts illegal weapons on our property. My brothers and I are licensed conceal and carry holders as well as many of our employees. We carry at work on a regular basis.
Saying guns do not belong in the workplace, as your article title states, allows the real criminals to take advantage of a “no weapon” policy. You also mention that what happened in Connecticut is a reason to not joke about “rednecks” and their need for guns. I can assure you I am not a redneck (nothing against rednecks) and between my brothers and I, we own over 50 guns of varying calibers and style. We believe in the right to keep and bear arms and enjoy the sporting of guns. What happened in Newtown could have been minimized or prevented if guns and training were incorporated into our schools. It is not a reason to take guns from law abiding citizens. If you look at a map where these tradgedies have occurred you will see a clear example of the most liberal states, states who believe in gun control.
Our business proudly displays a sign encouraging concealed carry on the premises and warns criminals of the fact. Gun control advocates are the minority, they are just screaming the loudest and using these unthinkable tradgedies as their sounding box to stand on. Every day that passes, without a tradgedy such as this, should be a resounding rebuttal to the gun control advocates. Why do you think gun sales are higher now then they ever have been before. The clear majority is saying, “you aren’t taking our guns”!
The government should stay out of gun control legislation whether it involves assault style rifles or workplace control. We run our business and pay our fair share of taxes each year. The government should worry about spending what we give them in taxes not whether our employees are allowed to carry weapons or not.
Whether the rule/law is the employer’s or a legislated matter, it will only serve as a “feel good” and I think will only create a false sense of security. There is absolutely no way to prevent a person from having a gun in their vehicle. Sure, there can be a law but the person who would bring a gun into the workplace and begin shooting would probably not care if there was a law prohibiting the gun on the employer’s premesis or in the parking lot.
No matter how hard you/we try, it is extremely difficult to stop a person from commiting a crime if they are determined to commit it.
All this type of legislation will do is create a false sense of security. It won’t prevent a thing.
Katie made a very good point. This act was performed by a mentally ill individual. Individuals who want to use their weapon in a nefarious way will do so regardless of posted “no weapons allowed” signs or gun control laws. Law abiding citizens are put at risk by these same signs and laws because they tell those that are going to do harm to others that it is safe for them to do so. It is safe because they know that the law abiders will not be able to shoot back. In an environment where individuals are allowed to carry, it sends the message to those who might otherwise cause harm that there may be people who will fight back with the same amount of force which provides a deterent. Max statements sum it up well with his examples. It truly is how you handle the situation and that the individuals who are angry or have been terminated don’t know if you are carrying.
The reality is, gun-free zones are not at all useful for preventing gun violence. Just the opposite, almost all recent mass killings have been in “gun-free” zone. Persons with crininal intent dont care what the rules are.
The bottom line is do we want a society that is like the Old West where everyone carried a gun for protection against everyone else, or do we want to have some measure of control over carrying a gun. IMO only the most unreasonable person would think that gun violence would be reduced if everyone were packing a gun. As it is now it is too easy for a nut to get an assault rifle. At a minimum we need a huge improvement in background checks. As an employer I agree with the article and the ramifications thereof. It doesn’t matter how right you might be in reprimanding or terminating an employee, it will always be an emotional situation and let’s be realistic, how many people does each of us know that you would not want to have a gun on their hip when they freek out.
Shawn says “If you look at a map where these tradgedies (sic) have occurred you will see a clear example of the most liberal states, states who believe in gun control.”
Shawn, could you show me your source for that statement?
If you look at the five worst gun massacres in recent history you will see this is not a problem of “of the most liberal states” as you say but a problem across the whole of the United States. I am so sick of people using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in their arguments. Every time I hear or read those terms I know that what comes afterward is just garbage.
For your information Shawn here are the locations of the top 5 worst gun massacres in recent history along with how the state went in the last four presidential elections.
1. Virginia (Carried by each party twice in the last four presidential elections)
2 Connecticut (carried by democratic party in all four elections)
3. Texas (carried by the republican party in last four elections)
4. California (Carried by democratic in last four elections)
5. Texas, (military base) carried by republican party in last four elections
Also if you look at gun crime statistics state by state you will see that this is not a liberal v. conservative issue. It’s an American issue.
Reading all the above makes me tired, makes me depressed. If I lived in Utah, and if I had children (which thankfully I do not), I would certainly home school them knowing that Utah allows guns in school. And, I agree with the comment that we need to quit making this a red v blue, liberal v conservative, Christian v other. I can’t help but feel that civilization has taken a great leap backward and that “man” is a failed experiment. I have experienced violence in the workplace; the employee had an arsenal in his car in our parking lot. Would our tight security controls have stopped his violence? No. He simply found a hidden spot outside and shot at people as they left the building. If they had been armed, they would have died before they had the chance to shoot back, though others may have died in cross-fire. Yes, he was “off his meds” — he was in the National Guard and owned all of his guns legally. What happened? Suicide by cop. I’m so glad his rights were not taken away from him. As far as I know he had no political or religious affiliation, though he was a fierce patriot.
Great post, Mr. Vreeland. Especially if you wanted to smoke out the whackos…
For a company, the issue is one of liability: If an incident occurs, and no one was allowed a firearm at work by company policy, is the company liable for consequent loss of life because management required its employees to be defenseless? Or, if guns are allowed, does the company assume some liability for the improper or misuse of the weapon(s)? Any firearms incident occurring in the workplace is likely to result in a law suit (especially if there are fatalities).
Company’s (I believe) must take into consideration the history, or lack thereof, of fatal attacks on their property. If there is no history, I would advise a “no firearms on the premises” policy. If there is a history, security measures should be enhanced, to possibly include an armed security presence by trained officers.
The best defense against workplace violence involves HR practices that result in hiring the right people, training them properly, supervising (managing) them continuously, and staying in touch with the temper and tone of your work place and work force.