EEllis and I are not often in agreement, but this is sage advice here.EEllis wrote:I would still say your issue is that lower level people are talking policy. Your site safety guy shouldn't have squat to do with this decision but he was the one giving you the pressure. If you go to HR, go to the legal Dept., I think you will get a much different message coming from the company. I wouldn't be all "it's the law I can have a gun!" mind you. I would instead complain about being targeted through hearsay, "hostile work environment" always gets people to pay attention in HR, and the legal dept may get a bit disturbed that you were told that someone would ignore state law and fire you for something that hasn't even occurred. That way you are not complaining about having a firearm, but the tactics, that you were targeted, and the fact that they said they would ignore the law which calls into question how they would act in regards to any legal issue they don't like.
As a business owner, I've somehow gotten on management-centric email lists. One that consistently shows up in my spam filter is from executive-reports.com. There was one there just this morning, with the title "How to Say 'You're Fired'". If you follow the link in the email to the online page (LINKEY), it makes the point that trying to fire an employee, even in a "right to work" state, is not free from liability for the employer, and the concerned employer has to do things just right to avoid the possibility of wrongful termination lawsuits, even where there is just cause for termination. The report proposes to teach the employer how to navigate the minefield to successfully terminate an employee without liability:
I highlighted that third bullet point because the phrases "right to work" and "at-will employment" are often used on this forum in these discussions as though employees have no legal rights in the matter of their employment. I'm not talking about the Constitution here. I'm talking about what the federal or state governments allow an employer to do, or forbid them from doing. Employers have employment rights.....but the thing often lost in the discussion is that employees have employment rights too. By that, I do not mean that they have a right to a job with that particular employer, but rather that, once employed, they have a right to expect the employer to behave in a certain way with regard to their employees. It gets lost for practical reasons: very few employees have deep enough pockets to force any kind of accountability onto the employer. Their pockets aren't deep enough to fight a large employer in court, unless the offense is just so egregious that the employer cannot win, and the employers' attorneys advise them to settle the matter as gracefully and expeditiously as possible to avoid a devastating financial loss. But not very many employees who have been badly handled by management have a case against an offense that egregious.Special Executive Report
Terminating Without Fear: What Employers Need to Know
Too many managers let fears of legal repercussions cloud their judgment about pulling the trigger on terminations.
But successful organizations never put off the inevitable. How a termination is handled makes all the difference between professionally parting ways … or getting slapped with a lawsuit.
This Executive Report lays out proven steps employers should take when dismissing employees so that managers can truly fire – when it is necessary – without fear.
————SNIP————
Navigate the Complex Laws of Employee Termination
- Severance packages: What some companies are required to offer
- Dealing with employee fallout after a coworker is let go
- Dispelling the myths of 'at-will' employment
- Training managers to deliver verbal warnings that will stick in court
- Key role employee handbooks play in setting expectations
The Bible cautions us to be "quiet as doves and wise as serpents". I don't talk about guns in general, my guns in particular, shooting, range trips, hunting, CHL, or any of that stuff with any of my clients (my employers) unless either A) they broach the subject first and they seem favorably disposed to the RKBA, or B) I already had a non-professional relationship with them before they hired me for a project. If I had a {{{{shudder}}}} job, as a company's employee, I would be equally as cautious. Even if I know the other person is favorably disposed, I have exactly zero control over their discretion.
When my son was in school back in California, I used to take him to the range with some regularity. I started him shooting when he was about 6 years old. But I ALSO told him that he must NEVER talk about it at school, with any of his friends, and ESPECIALLY with his teachers. When he asked why, I told him that some of them would be very nosy about it and could make trouble for us.....trouble that we absolutely did not need, and could not defend ourselves against.
Work is the same way. Freedom of speech and the RKBA are all well and good, but the world doesn't really care about your rights or mine, and neither do the kind of people who think we should not have or enjoy those rights..... particularly in their parking lots or lunch rooms. For the most part, they have deeper pockets than any of us. It isn't as easy for them to can you as you might think it is, but if they can tick off all the check boxes on a detailed procedure, they can easily slap a layer of protection from liability on themselves. It is best to simply not give them a reason in the first place.
Does that mean that I would not keep my gun in my car if carry were not permitted at work? No. I would definitely keep the gun in my car. I am NOT going to go about disarmed on my own time simply because my employer has their collective head where the sun don't shine; but i am also NOT going to give them a reason to ever suspect that a gun is stored in my car. Quiet as doves, wise as serpents.
