TexasCHLforum.com

Xander wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: If your argument were valid there would be no basis for harrassment and/or workplace safety laws. After all, if the workplace was unpleasant or unsafe, you could simply leave, right?

That is not a valid comparison. There are laws that protect workers from harassment and certain (not all!) unsafe environments. A better example would be that nothing in the law, for instance, prevents a taxi cab company from sending a driver into a known bad part of town to pick up a fare. If you don't like driving into bad parts of town at night, your legal option is to quit, or refuse and be fired.

If you want a comparison for the potential recourse against a company for a policy that effects you negatively, make it the actions against companies for other matters of policy, not actions taken when laws were broken.

You certainly *can* sue to have policies rescinded, or when you've been injured because of a policy, but mudding the waters by attempting to compare these situations with situations where laws were broken only confuses the issue.

My employer's Workplace Violence training program specifically identifies violence perpetrated by individuals as one of the leading causes of job related death and injury in the US. Workplace violence is tracked as a category although there is not an OSHA standard for employers.

OSHA:

Violence in the workplace is a serious safety and health issue. Its most extreme form, homicide, is the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 564 workplace homicides in 2005 in the United States, out of a total of 5,702 fatal work injuries.

Almost 10% of workplace fatalities were homicides.

Also from the OSHA page:

There are currently no specific standards for workplace violence. However, this page highlights Federal Registers (rules, proposed rules, and notices) and standard interpretations (official letters of interpretation of the standards) related to workplace violence.

Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, often referred to as the General Duty Clause, requires employers to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees". Section 5(a)(2) requires employers to "comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act".

I pretty much think a lawsuit for failure to protect workers by disarming them would be successful.

Anygun

Sangiovese wrote:

Liberty wrote: The truth is I don't believe anyone has successfully sued because they were forced to be unarmed.

I don't think anyone has ever lost a suit like that either. To my knowledge it has never been tested in court.

I *WILL* be the test case if I am ever a victime of violence while disarmed by my employer's policy.

I will be the test case if I am ever a victim of crime/violence while disarmed by not only my employer but anywhere. You will not be able to shovel enough dirt to cover up the stink.

Anygun