To and From Work...

[CHLady]

My story ALMOST had a good ending to it. The policy manual almost got changed until someone found additional language in our building lease that said the company can't knowingly allow such a thing. "Ugh" Almost but not, so it looks like your policy manual is not the only hurdle sometimes.

[bigmojo]

So..i had this exact same issue. At one time we had no policy regarding weapons. Then we got bought by a company in Atlanta and bam! new company policy that prohibits employees from carrying a weapon on company property, including the parking lot, and exposed the employees to a search of their vehicle. To remain employed you had to sign the new policy, and the new policy stated that regardless of local law, a condition of employment was authorization for vehicle searches.

No problem. I signed the thing and continued to carry in my computer bag everyday. I thought, what the heck, the worst that can happen is I get fired. Conversely by not carrying the worst that cold happen is Im dead. After a while I got pretty hot under the collar about the whole corporate takeover from these [abbreviated profanity deleted.] in Atlanta and decided this was a battle I was willing to fight. I went to management and told them that in Texas they had no right to the search and seizure of an employees vehicle due to the passing of the castle doctrine, with which the car is viewed as an extension of the home. To that end, any uninvited guests (ie. search) into the home or car could result in the justifiable use of deadly force. Furthermore, should one choose to comply with their policy, since they are prohibiting that employee from defending themselves while commuting to and from work, should something happen that could have been prevented by said employee having their weapon with them, that the company could be held liable. I know it was a stretch, but I figured I would float it out there anyway.

It took about two days for the corporate attorney to argue that the search could be done since it was a condition of employment, but that he agreed there was "a potential for perceived liability" by essentially prohibiting employees from legally carrying their weapon to and from work. The company policy regarding possession of weapons and vehicle search was removed and a new policy manual distributed. In addition I was thanked for looking out for the companies best interest.

Best of luck to you!

[A-R]

So..i had this exact same issue. At one time we had no policy regarding weapons. Then we got bought by a company in Atlanta and bam! new company policy that prohibits employees from carrying a weapon on company property, including the parking lot, and exposed the employees to a search of their vehicle. To remain employed you had to sign the new policy, and the new policy stated that regardless of local law, a condition of employment was authorization for vehicle searches.

No problem. I signed the thing and continued to carry in my computer bag everyday. I thought, what the heck, the worst that can happen is I get fired. Conversely by not carrying the worst that cold happen is Im dead. After a while I got pretty hot under the collar about the whole corporate takeover from these [abbreviated profanity deleted.] in Atlanta and decided this was a battle I was willing to fight. I went to management and told them that in Texas they had no right to the search and seizure of an employees vehicle due to the passing of the castle doctrine, with which the car is viewed as an extension of the home. To that end, any uninvited guests (ie. search) into the home or car could result in the justifiable use of deadly force. Furthermore, should one choose to comply with their policy, since they are prohibiting that employee from defending themselves while commuting to and from work, should something happen that could have been prevented by said employee having their weapon with them, that the company could be held liable. I know it was a stretch, but I figured I would float it out there anyway.

It took about two days for the corporate attorney to argue that the search could be done since it was a condition of employment, but that he agreed there was "a potential for perceived liability" by essentially prohibiting employees from legally carrying their weapon to and from work. The company policy regarding possession of weapons and vehicle search was removed and a new policy manual distributed. In addition I was thanked for looking out for the companies best interest.

Best of luck to you!

bigmojo, congrats! That is great work you did. I've been thinking the company liability angle was a great point for years now (just never was in a position to put the idea in front of anyone of importance).

If you ever get to the point where you feel it is OK to reveal the name of your company, I would love to know.

[joe817]

bigmojo, a big tip of the hat to you sir! Congratulations on a job well done! Your persuasive argument caused a re-write of the company manual, for the benefit of ALL company employees. Kudos.