Employee / customer?

[Guest WestonGray]

The back forth in this thread much more civil than I've seen in lots of others...

No lie! I know I'm enjoying it.

I agree with fallguy that there are different standards for a corporate setting when you are rarely there not to do something work related, and a retail setting where you may just be getting groceries.

[daddyo]

But I still don't understand the difference. In both cases, you don't stop being an employee just because you come in after hours to either get something you forgot or to spend some money. If weapons are forbidden, and unless company policy specifically states that an employee may disregard that policy when he is not "officially" at work, then how can someone say it's OK for the employee to carry there just because he/she has now put on their "customer" hat?

[Chucktshoes]

I am a retail manager and this is how my company differentiates which policies would apply on the clock or off/on the clock. What I would call ceremonial policies, such as dress and appearance or anything that does not involve safety, loss prevention, or maintaining good order, apply only when on the clock. If it has to potential to cause damage to the stores bottom line, it applies all the time. So if it can be viewed as having the possibility to endanger another (weapons or unsafe behavior) or damage morale or workplace discipline (fighting, disrespectful actions or words to others) or otherwise be a loss prevention issue (theft, etc.) then you need to fly right when on the company property.

[Fallguy]

Well to me as a customer, you're no longer representing the company at that moment. But that may just be me...

[daddyo]

Well to me as a customer, you're no longer representing the company at that moment. But that may just be me...

But that's not the issue. You are still an employee of the company, and bound by the company's policy when you are on their property. I'm not aware of any companies who make that kind of distinction in their policy manual.

[Fallguy]

But that's not the issue. You are still an employee of the company, and bound by the company's policy when you are on their property. I'm not aware of any companies who make that kind of distinction in their policy manual.

Well I think it might vary depending on the type of business and what the policy is, sort of like Chucktshoes said.

If you work at a donut shop and are required to wear a hairnet and gloves while making the donuts...I don't think you'd have to wear them when you came in on your day off to buy some donuts.

[monkeylizard]

that automatically means they have to wear studs and can't let their hair down just when there in their period?

This, boys and girls, is why we need to know the difference between there, their, and they're.

[daddyo]

Well I think it might vary depending on the type of business and what the policy is, sort of like Chucktshoes said.

If you work at a donut shop and are required to wear a hairnet and gloves while making the donuts...I don't think you'd have to wear them when you came in on your day off to buy some donuts.

"while making the donuts" is the key here. I believe that phrase would be left out of a company firearms policy.

"The employee is forbidden from carrying a firearm while making donuts." LOL

[Fallguy]

This, boys and girls, is why we need to know the difference between there, their, and they're.

Oops....lol

[monkeylizard]

"The employee is forbidden from carrying a firearm while making donuts." LOL

Yeah. That doesn't make sense at all. If that's the policy, how are they supposed to put the holes in them?

edit: fer spelllin'

[Fallguy]

"while making the donuts" is the key here. I believe that phrase would be left out of a company firearms policy.

"The employee is forbidden from carrying a firearm while making donuts." LOL

Would make for a more fun way to put the whole in them though...wouldn't it?

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Well to me as a customer, you're no longer representing the company at that moment. But that may just be me...

+1

[Chucktshoes]

Something that may help clarify this issue further is that at my current and past employers, they didn't have a separate "Firearms" policy. Firearms are/were covered under the "Workplace Violence" policies. They view employee possession of firearms as tantamount to an act of violence and therefore, not allowable under any circumstances. Possession of a firearms at anytime while on company property is considered the same as punching a coworker or customer, on or off the clock and therefore subject to immediate termination.

[Makiaveli]

Ask them indirectly. The question to ask them is "Are the policies that cover us as employees, while at work, still in effect for us while shopping here on our own time?" If they ask her to be more specific, tell them the question speaks for itself. Do they have to follow the employee handbook (if there is one) while shopping, or are they like every other customer?

The answer should be no, whether it's carrying or the dress code or any other employee policy.

This, as you don't need the person she asks to run to upper management saying your wife is wanting to go on a killing spree.

If forced, then she should have a backup rule, like the aforementioned dress code or something.

[DaveTN]

There is no question of law here, only company policy.

And that’s the bottom line.

[Guest 270win]

I would keep a low profile and not ask a thing from HR. HR people will of course say no and then figure out how to get you fired when they think you are a problem. If you are going to carry, keep it well concealed with a good holster. Companies most of the time selectively use their policies when dealing with people they don't like.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Companies most of the time selectively use their policies when dealing with people they don't like.

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion.

[gl19gobang]

Wow, thanks for all the replies. We will have to ask the store management. I carry in there all the time. just wondering if my wife could becuase she works there. I know my question is not a law matter, but a company matter, and there may not be a definate answer due to individual company rules. Just dont want her to get fired.

[daddyo]

I would keep a low profile and not ask a thing from HR. HR people will of course say no and then figure out how to get you fired when they think you are a problem. If you are going to carry, keep it well concealed with a good holster. Companies most of the time selectively use their policies when dealing with people they don't like.

This is absolutely, positively, 100% true. I've seen it myself.

[ttocswob]

...We will have to ask the store management. I carry in there all the time. Just wondering if my wife could because she works there.

Careful here - this statement alone could get her fired, if they are so inclined. JMO

[Guest 270win]

I personally would not even bring up the fact that you carry a gun at your wife's work. It is really not worth it with today's bed wetter mindset. What will you gain by it? You stand a lot to lose by bringing up the subject. If your gun is hidden, then it is no one's business. Sharing that fact with others, especially coworkers or spouse's coworkers, does nothing but cause problems. If you are legal, which you are by having a license, then carry if you want. I never share the fact that I carry and I visit all sorts of businesses with my line of work. Sharing that I carry will not gain me anything. People not knowing that I carry is to my advantage and most people's advantage.

[BigK]

People can get fired from a job for something they do on their own time AWAY from work (stupid Facebook comments, DUI, etc.). If the company thinks your behavior can adversely affect their business they'll fire you in a heartbeat.

[Makiaveli]

People can get fired from a job for something they do on their own time AWAY from work (stupid Facebook comments, DUI, etc.). If the company thinks your behavior can adversely affect their business they'll fire you in a heartbeat.

Hank Williams ya mean?

[BigK]

Hank Williams ya mean?

His comments were overblown, IMO. Regardless, if ESPN feels his comments reflect poorly on them they have a right to stop letting him represent them. He exercised his 1st Amendment rights and suffered the reprecussions. I just hope that ESPN suffers worse consequences for firing him.

[Makiaveli]

His comments were overblown, IMO. Regardless, if ESPN feels his comments reflect poorly on them they have a right to stop letting him represent them. He exercised his 1st Amendment rights and suffered the reprecussions. I just hope that ESPN suffers worse consequences for firing him.

I fully support their right to fire him over it. I also think it was a foolish thing to say on many levels. Just wish someone up their had the cojones to let him apologize to the easily offended and get on with life.