TexasCHLforum.com

My employer (AT&T) holds to the no guns on company property rule. Its in the Code of Business Conduct that each employee must sign annually. Violation of this rule results in instant termination. I have a good job and I don't intend to put it at risk for a violation of this rule.

However, I could see this rule being changed under certain circumstances. Let's say that a nut ball did go on a rampage and killed or wounded a bunch of people at some office. Might not the survivors or their families sue the company because its own rule put the victims at risk? In other words, if the no weapons rule made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves, doesn't the protection of the employees become the obligation and responsibility of the company? Seems like the company is taking on a large liability. Under a scenario like this, the company could lose millions and millions of dollars.

I would hate to see it happen, but it might be the only way businesses change their policies - when the risk of damages becomes greater than the risk of relenting some property rights.

Out West