Rule at Wifes New Job

[MudBugjr]

Was told by HR that she wasn't permitted to carry at the office. then was told that if a visitor or someone related to her caught in the office carrying would result in her termination. Whats up with that. Why not just post a sign? The job will have people coming in that are would be clients.

[56FordGuy]

How did HR know she had a permit? New job, background check?

[Guest mustangdave]

Its part of Employee INDOC...its usually all in the Employee Handbook...that New Hires are "suppose" to READ. I don't know if there is a "requirement" for a "business" to POST a sign...I know my work place isn't posted...but it is WELL DOCUMENTED in the HR literature...NO GUNS...

[Smith]

HR literature is not law and by law they have to post. Now if there are contracts involved it becomes a whole other issue as well.

[bubbadavis]

My company's HR literature says no weapons unless you have permission from one of the owners. My boss is one of the owners and he has a HCP. The other owner has been out shooting with me. Whenever I've picked up a new gun on my lunch break, they always want me to bring it in and show it off when I get back.

BIG difference from my former employer - who would call in the national guard if you said the word 'gun'. Of course, they were HQ'd in Boston...

[Motasyco]

HR literature is not law and by law they have to post. Now if there are contracts involved it becomes a whole other issue as well.

Violating company policy may not put you in jail but it could sure put you in the unemployment line.

[Guest HvyMtl]

She should advise HR to hold accountable those who act, not her. She has no control over them. having some 3rd party's action make her loose her job? Well, they won't phrase it that way...

I wish I knew who created the concept of a HR department, and may they have gotten the raw end from the concept he/she created...

Advise the company to post if they want others not to have firearms on their property...

HR is overstepping a bit. But, well, HR these days can and do overstep. What happened and made humans "resources?"

[strickj]

HR literature is not law and by law they have to post. Now if there are contracts involved it becomes a whole other issue as well.

Thats half of it.

The other half says that any representative can tell you that you can not carry.

So if your told,and you do it anyway,you could face legal troubles I suppose

[Guest gopher]

If the company has a "no-weapons" policy, it applies to their employees, and should be documented in a policy manual or employee handbook. Unless the policy specifically states that they are including visitors of the employee, then technically, it would not be a violation. However, that being said, the employ-at-will doctrine in Tennessee would allow the company to terminate for any reason. If it turns out that it was due to a violation of a documented company policy, then the terminated employee could be SOL when/if they apply for unemployment benefits.

I say "could be" as the TNDLWD would probably award the UE benefits, if not initially, on appeal given the fact the employee could easily argue they had no reason to believe their visitor was armed. Of course, if their visitor was OCing, then it would be hard to defend.

Similar to previous commentors, if the company wants to keep non-employees from entering the business carrying a weapon, then they need to post at the entrances.

[MudBugjr]

Thats what I'm saying. She can't control everyone that walks through the door. So now when we eat lunch I'll be picking her up at the door not going in!

[Guest jackdm3]

The ugly result of all of this is that management would probably delight in letting her go because 1) the husband is pushing it to the limit and 2) they have reason to believe she'll carry later.

[Guest Bluemax]

Guys, as bad as I hate to admit it this is a dead end street, as mentioned above Tn is an employee at will state. To put it as simply as possible this means an employer can terminate an employee at any time and is not even required to provide an explanation for the termination. This law is about as chicken s#$t as it comes but thats the way it is.

[tennessee01tacoma]

I work at a certain parts store their handbook says no weapons on their property period, not on your person or in your vehicle and you will be fired if caught. I work and goto school about 35 minutes away from home and I have had my rifles in the truck. my previous boss always wanted to see them and didn't care. I'm just curious if they can even make this kind of regulation.

and here recently they told us no more pocket knives, that the only blades allowed were their safety cutters that only let you use about 1/4 inch of the blade. I still carry my pocket knife but these kind of rules makes me ashamed of the company I work for. Good thing its only till I can get my degree

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

There are worse things than being fired. My company has a no guns clause in the employee handbook but I have had a 9mm in my pocket every day of 2 years I have worked here. Being in the IT industry as an elite programmer of 30+ years experience, it would take me an afternoon to find a new 9-5.

Even if I couldn't replace my job overnight, I would still carry. They better not get their hands anywhere near my privates or on my body period and I am not going to empty my pockets for them.

Besides I work in bad-guy central, in the banking and finance industry. I am surprised that some disgruntled customer has not appeared in person to "pay their bill".

[Guest HexHead]

Guys, as bad as I hate to admit it this is a dead end street, as mentioned above Tn is an employee at will state. To put it as simply as possible this means an employer can terminate an employee at any time and is not even required to provide an explanation for the termination. This law is about as chicken s#$t as it comes but thats the way it is.

While TN is a right to work state, depending on the circumstances, the company can still be sued for wrongful termination if a person is terminated because of something a 3rd party does. It's not as cut and dry as it sounds.

If it were, there would be no such thing as "wrongful termination".

[BryanP]

Violating company policy may not put you in jail but it could sure put you in the unemployment line.

Ding ding ding. Yep. I had to explain that to a guy who said he was going to go on vacation to Amsterdam and get blitzed on marijuana since it would be legal. "Legal doesn't protect you. If you test positive on a drug screen HR doesn't care."

[Guest HexHead]

Ding ding ding. Yep. I had to explain that to a guy who said he was going to go on vacation to Amsterdam and get blitzed on marijuana since it would be legal. "Legal doesn't protect you. If you test positive on a drug screen HR doesn't care."

Boy, talk about being unclear on the concept. LOLOLOLOL

[LagerHead]

Guys, as bad as I hate to admit it this is a dead end street, as mentioned above Tn is an employee at will state. To put it as simply as possible this means an employer can terminate an employee at any time and is not even required to provide an explanation for the termination. This law is about as chicken s#$t as it comes but thats the way it is.

I disagree. If I own a business, and you're my employee, I should have the right to let you go, fire you, whatever you want to call it, any time I want for any reason. It's my business and you have no right to work there.

Just my opinion. And you know what they say about those!

[TGO David]

Was told by HR that she wasn't permitted to carry at the office. then was told that if a visitor or someone related to her caught in the office carrying would result in her termination. Whats up with that. Why not just post a sign? The job will have people coming in that are would be clients.

Why were they so specific about this with her? Did she ask? Did someone spot her carrying?

Or are you just relating part of what the employee handbook says?

[Guest HexHead]

I disagree. If I own a business, and you're my employee, I should have the right to let you go, fire you, whatever you want to call it, any time I want for any reason. It's my business and you have no right to work there.

Just my opinion. And you know what they say about those!

If that were really true, then you should be able to not hire anyone you don't want to. But that's not necessarily the case either.

[Smith]

Violating company policy may not put you in jail but it could sure put you in the unemployment line.

Not arguing against it. Just saying legal is different than a companies policies. Companies have policies all the time that are not necessarily legal. Some of this is due to differences in state laws. If the parent company is righting policy in California you can beat there will be conflicts in Tennessee. Unless you have the resources to legal fight the policy it's probably a better avenue to fight for policy change through the legislature.

On the other hand I am all for a companies right to do what they want (within the law). You don't have to work there and they shouldn't have to keep you or hire you if they don't want. I think there are too many work laws as there are. Some are good but most just cost the employees and customers too much. It used to be a privilege to work and people took pride in what they did. Now all a lot of them seem to do is moan and groan about what they don't have while doing a half ass job as it is.

[Guest gopher]

I work at a certain parts store their handbook says no weapons on their property period, not on your person or in your vehicle and you will be fired if caught. I work and goto school about 35 minutes away from home and I have had my rifles in the truck. my previous boss always wanted to see them and didn't care. I'm just curious if they can even make this kind of regulation.

and here recently they told us no more pocket knives, that the only blades allowed were their safety cutters that only let you use about 1/4 inch of the blade. I still carry my pocket knife but these kind of rules makes me ashamed of the company I work for. Good thing its only till I can get my degree

A company has good reason for banning weapons. It is not because they are anti-2A. It is for worker's safety and liability.

Unfortunately, I've seen first hand what can happen at a workplace involving weapons. In this particular case, the weapon turned out to be a safety cutter. The situation involved an employee who (unknown to the company at the time) had an underlying medical condition. They were one of the best employees, until that particular day. The employee missed taking his/her medication for the medical condition, which led to a behavioral outburst involving violent acts against co-workers and the safety cutter.

We terminated the employee for gross misconduct and the termination held firm, despite argument of an ADA claim.

One could argue that if you were one of the co-workers and were armed, you could've prevented the situation. However, I submit that although that is a possibility, it is also conceivable that an outraged employee could obtain the weapon from you. Another possibility, is that maybe the employee who is carrying to defend themselves in a similar situation as above, has a sudden onset of rage caused by either a coworker or a medical condition that they didn't know they had. Yes, it may seem ironic, and far fetched, but stuff like this happens. Situations like this traumatize everyone at the workplace, whether or not they are a direct victim or witness. So beyond any expense or liability and looking at these situations from a big picture standpoint, it impacts so many lives. It can put a company out of business and people out of work, if they can even still function following the event.

A company has to view violence in the workplace as a very serious matter. Employees are a company's greatest asset. Without them, they can't make money. So, they will do what they can to protect their employees. Even if it means enforcement of a no weapons policy.

I was personally threatened over the phone by a former employee. At first I didn't think anything of it since he probably said it out of frustration and anger. However, after a little more thought, felt it would be in the best interest of my own personal safety, the safety of my coworkers, and as a protection from liability for the company, to file a restraining order. Nothing ever happended, but had we not filed the order, its possible something could've occurred, resulting in an unpleasant outcome for many people.

Don't get me wrong, I would really prefer to carry at work as I feel strongly about my 2A rights. However, unfortunately, in today's world the establishment and enforcement of a no weapons policy at work definitely has it's merits.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I do believe that employees should be allowed to leave their weapon locked in their car in the company parking lot.

[TGO David]

I was personally threatened over the phone by a former employee. At first I didn't think anything of it since he probably said it out of frustration and anger. However, after a little more thought, felt it would be in the best interest of my own personal safety, the safety of my coworkers, and as a protection from liability for the company, to file a restraining order. Nothing ever happended, but had we not filed the order, its possible something could've occurred, resulting in an unpleasant outcome for many people.

Not to be a wet blanket, but an emergency protective order (EPO) is really only good for people who heed such decrees and for evidence of your own fear of bodily harm or death when you end up having to remove someone under an EPO from the food chain. An EPO doesn't magically prevent someone from trying to do you harm.

You guys are lucky that this person was sane enough to fear incarceration and stay away per the EPO. Had he not been quite so stable, the EPO may have angered him even more and resulted in him using your workplace as a shooting alley.

It's the typical fallacy in the idea of a "Gun Free Zone". The only people who care about that are law abiding, sane people.

[tennessee01tacoma]

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I do believe that employees should be allowed to leave their weapon locked in their car in the company parking lot.

That was my main question. I was told that my works property extended to the parking lot and my vehicle occupies the parking lot. and that even though my vehicle is my legal property that I still couldn't have a weapon in it in any conditions (ie locked or disassembled etc.) I have since heard from other sources just don't let anyone know and nothing would be said.

I threw in the knife part cause just to get another outlook. the ban on knives came after someone cut theirself and filed for workmans comp

[LagerHead]

If that were really true, then you should be able to not hire anyone you don't want to. But that's not necessarily the case either.

Yes and no. Regardless of affirmative action laws, I don't know of any way you can be forced to hire a particular individual. At least if you're a company that didn't take the bailout and aren't part of Obama, Inc.