Suggestions for convincing carry at work...

[BPE]

So, at my current place of business I'm in a management position and as such have been asked to take part in assisting the owners of the company work out some minor flaws in the employee handbook. Most are simple issues concerning time off rules and things of this nature. However, there is one part that I'm requesting suggestions on to make a point understood in most respectful but convincing manner.

You see, our current company regulations disallow the possession of "weapons" on company property. The definition of weapons is missing so the term is used in a vague sense. Everyone here carries a pocket knife for opening shipping container but guns have been understood to be strictly off limits. I've let my position be known for sometime regarding my opinion about the removal of such language from the handbook but need some guidance in making sure my reasoning is sound to those who may not agree with me immediately.

For now, I'm working on something in the words of:

"I submit that the banning of weapons from company property be removed from the handbook so that those employees, rightfully licensed by the state of Tennessee, may carry a weapon onto company property to prevent and protect from unlikely events of aggression. It should be noted that anyone wishing to carry such a weapon should be made to check with HR to confirm the validity of licensing. Additionally, any weapon carried onto company property must remain out of sight at all times unless required to defend one's self from an immediate threat of life."

I get to about that point right there and then I start to feel as if I'm sounding really nutty about the whole situation. Not everyone at my company would jump up and down about this idea of carrying weapons but it would put a few at ease knowing they could.

Any suggestions on how best to approach the wording to request a change to the rules in a convincing manner would be helpful and appreciated. Mainly I want to be respectful and not force the issue but make a resounding stance about why change should take place.

[Guest cardcutter]

"I submit that the banning of weapons from company property be removed from the handbook so that those employees, rightfully licensed by the state of Tennessee, may carry a weapon onto company property to prevent and protect from unlikely events of aggression. It should be noted that anyone wishing to carry such a weapon should be made to check with HR to confirm the validity of licensing. Additionally, any weapon carried onto company property must remain out of sight at all times unless required to defend one's self from an immediate threat of life."

Perhaps you might change this to something like:"I submit that the banning of weapons from company property be removed from the handbook so that those employees, rightfully licensed by the state of Tennessee, may carry a weapon onto company property in their vehicle. Additionally, any weapon carried onto company property must remain out of sight at all times and must not be carried inside the building."

You might also add that duly permitted person need not be denied the ability to protect themselves in route to and from work because the cannot leave their weapon in their cars.

While it won't get you a carry at work rule at least it will start the company in that direction.

JMHO

Jim

[RobertNashville]

I think before I did anything to submit a change, I'd try to ascertain why they have the language in the fist place. If the current language is there simply because it was in some boilerplate employee handbook guide you are likely to get a different reaction to a proposed change in policy compared to the language being there because the owners are anti-firearm or are overly worried about liability, etc.

I suspect most employers who disallow "weapons" on their property do so as a "default" position and/or because it's simply easier to have a stated policy against weapons than it is to craft a policy that everyone feels comfortable with and insulates the organization from liability.

As to specific language, perhaps you could qualify the term "weapons" by substituting the phrase "illegal weapons". If the "weapon" is legal under Tennessee law then it's legal to have it on company policy; otherwise, it's forbidden...that would take care of someone going armed without a HCP and it would cover someone carrying a knife that is illegal per TN law.

[Dennis1209]

^ Robert's got it...

[bbeck]

I am going through this at work as well. We work in a tough part of town. We have had several too close for comfort instances in the last year. I took it to our HR and she took it to the president and now he is taking it to the board. I am trying to have our wording changed to no illegal weapons or approved weapons etc.

Good luck with your changes.

Sent from my Droid X using Smoke Signals!

[BPE]

I think I'll agree with you that an addendum of a single word gets the job done while not making a stink of things. That is why I came here. Thanks for the insight of what may have seemed obvious.

[QuietDan]

Consider getting a hold of NRA-ILA folks. This issue surely comes up all over the country and I imagine they have quality lingo they can lay on you so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. They might also have tried and true strategies and tactics to help you avoid pitfalls along the way.

[shaftbass]

Consider getting a hold of NRA-ILA folks. This issue surely comes up all over the country and I imagine they have quality lingo they can lay on you so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. They might also have tried and true strategies and tactics to help you avoid pitfalls along the way.

Good thoughts.