Rights of Employers OUTSIDE of company 'premises'

[E10]

I am not a lawyer. However, I AM an employer, and a former Senior Professional in Human Resources. I assure you, they CAN fire you for cause if you violate company policy or disobey direct orders. You will probably not be eligible for unemployment benefits, although that's sometimes a hit-and-miss call. Who wants that kind of trouble? If you want to carry at work, go find another job. Or start your own company and then you can decide company policy.

[rbraughn]

I would agree with the previous posts.....Bottom line:

If your employer gives you notice, either verbally or in a written policy, they can fire you. It doesn't matter whether it's in their vehicle or on their property. Doesn't matter if you are "legally" carrying or not. They are saying while you are on the clock, no matter where you are (even if at a training seminar somewhere) you cannot be armed.

Also, nice letter, but the Attorney General will not issue an "Opinion" to an ordinary citizen.

[Tephlon]

I find this whole discussion quite interesting.

It reminds me of a discussion I had a while back with a friend of mine. He got pulled over while in a company truck (I think it was for speeding), and the truck also had an expired inspection sticker.
The cop wrote him a ticket for both. When my friend said "But this is a company vehicle", the cop basically said "You're in control of the vehicle, therefore you are liable." Basically saying that if he wanted to drive the truck and not get written the ticket than he should take it up with his employer to keep their vehicles legal.

Isn't this a little crazy?

Company liable for a wreck.
You're liable for speeding/traffic tickets.
You're liable for broken tail lights/expired tags.
Company liable for you protecting yourself...

It all just seems chaotic and twisted.

Anyone ever heard of this type of thing happening before? I mean, how can the company be liable for the way you drive, yet you be liable for the company's property?

[seamusTX]

This is not so hard to understand.

The root cause of the situation is the way that our laws are made. They are not designed from the top down by a master planner.

Every two years, the 181 legislators introduce thousands of bills. Some of those bills introduce new sections of law. Most amend existing sections.

Those bills are winnowed down and amended, and most of the ones that pass are voted on in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the session.

(I will not comment on the role of alcohol in this process.)

It's no surprise that we have a mess of inconsistent and contradictory laws.

Moving violations are defined in the Transportation Code. The driver of a vehicle is responsible for all aspects of the vehicle. So if you are driving a rental car with a burned-out headlight, you get the ticket, not the car rental company.

This kind of thing is not a huge problem, because the judge will always dismiss such tickets if you prove that you have remedied the problem.

Civil liability is defined in the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Employees are considered agents of their employers, and most actions of employees while on the clock or payroll also incur liability for the employer.

The employer is also liable for some but not all on-the-job injuries or death.

Your employer's ability to control work conditions, including whether you are armed or not, is defined by other sections of law.

If you read the draft of the parking-lot bill, you will see that it reaches into the Civil Practices and Remedies Code to relieve the employer of liability for any action of an employee related to having a firearm in his personal vehicle. It also maintains the employer's ability to control carrying weapons in company-owned vehicles.

- Jim

[dicion]

Sorry to be a thread necromancer... but it's worth it :)

Today, I got the 'unofficial' nod from my supervisor to carry while at work.

The story behind this was as follows.

Big Customer meeting in our office today. VP wanted wireless access setup for all the customers so they can access our server, check their email, etc.

I produced a nice policy letter stating that Wireless access to our network was against corporate security policy, therefore I could not do it.
"Oh, you can just ignore that policy, this is only temporary anyways" ..... Oh Really?

I took my boss behind closed doors and had a nice talk about double standards on following corporate policy...

In the end, he got his wireless, and I have an 'understanding' with my manager

Could they still fire me? Sure, but I feel more comfortable about it now that I know my manager's got my back, even if only a little bit.

I'm also in a unique position here, where it would cost them more to fire me, then it would to put up with me.
I hold certain certifications that only half a dozen people in the city hold, and these certifications are required for some contracts we have.
So if they fired me, they would have to find someone with these certifications immediately to replace me, or lose the contract.
It's a good position to be in, especially with the economy the way it is right now.

[stevie_d_64]

This is one of those threads (discussions) that really shows a great deal of knowledge, study, wieghing the pros and cons of an overall issue that has always hung out there and never really drying after it has been washed...

In the end it appears to still be a tenuous, knife-edge, could fall either way off the fence as well...

We all know why we carry, and the risk to ourselves extends beyond the physical aspects of why we carry...This is one of them...

It is a battle in a war that will never end...

I'm just glad I didn't get into this one...I seriously doubt I would have had anything to add to it...

[caldvn]

I produced a nice policy letter stating that Wireless access to our network was against corporate security policy, therefore I could not do it.
"Oh, you can just ignore that policy, this is only temporary anyways" ..... Oh Really?

I took my boss behind closed doors and had a nice talk about double standards on following corporate policy...

In the end, he got his wireless, and I have an 'understanding' with my manager

It could appear that you were aware of corporate policy to Wireless access, and yet enabled it anyways. As long as people don't know what you're doing, they can't be faulted for you doing it, therefore "least" liable. "Well, I didn't know he was a mass murderer..."

One of the things I have noticed with "corporate" policies, there are always exceptions. :)

[mr.72]

The problem with this, as it relates to company policies against carrying firearms, is that the carrying of firearms is a political and emotional issue, perhaps far more than it is a safety, security, or legal issue for some companies. So once you begin asking about carrying a gun or an exception to the policy, you risk being labeled as a "nut" and you might as well just carry and get caught. If they are seriously going to fire a good employee because they carried a gun when there was no harm done by the carrying of the gun, then they are going to probably find a reason to fire that same employee just for asking about carrying a gun, because they are placing their value on the emotional issue of "no guns" above the value of the employee's service to the company.

On the other hand, something like wireless network access is not exactly seen as some emotional issue. If you ask about wireless access, you are not a "nut". You are simply informed of the policy.

At my former employer, there was a clear "no guns" policy. We were required to read the code of business conduct each year and sign a statement of agreement, and this document contained this policy. It also contained a strict "no alcohol" policy as well, but there was beer in the refrigerator every time I opened it for the entire 12.5 years I worked there and of course they had beer and wine available at company parties (most recently I remember the "Thanksgiving Social"), so obviously they didn't really intend to fire everyone who brought or consumed alcohol on the premises. They only intended to fire you for this purpose if you showed up drunk and did some other stupid thing (it happened...). Likewise I figure if you carry a gun to work there they will not fire you even if they knew about it, but if you did something stupid with it such as show it to a coworker, threaten someone with it, lose track of it and allow it to fall into someone else's hands, or of course actually shoot it at the office, then you would be fired (and likely also arrested).

So I kind of think these policies may frequently be mostly for when someone does something stupid and winds up causing harm to another person or their property then they have a policy to cover it.

[Dwood]

Do not listen to me ok. But if it were me and I were in your situation I would carry. I would just get out of my truck to defend myself. Then I would tell my employer that I was off the clock at the time I defended myself. I would rather find another job than have my family bury me. Just my thoughts. But going out to places that are in bad areas by yourself at night is most likely inviting someone to rob you. What is your company doing to protect you?

[dicion]

@ Dwood: My thoughts exactly, and that will likely be the way I roll


@ Mr.72 above him,

I also see it as a way for companies to try to escape liability. Say an employee does shoot someone on the job.

"We have a no weapons policy, which he reviewed and signed every year, Look, here's the paperwork. He violated our policy, therefore we are not liable"

Oh well. Didn't mean to bring up the whole thread, just wanted to post that I used their own rules to hang em with, and therefore garnered myself an exception. :)
I have no opposition to this thread being locked. It has run it's course.

[pedalman]

But going out to places that are in bad areas by yourself at night is most likely inviting someone to rob you. What is your company doing to protect you?

If his company is anything like my employer (a community college), it most likely does nothing to protect him.

[ELB]

Sorry to be a thread necromancer... but it's worth it :)

I took my boss behind closed doors and had a nice talk about double standards on following corporate policy...

In the end, he got his wireless, and I have an 'understanding' with my manager

Could they still fire me? Sure, but I feel more comfortable about it now that I know my manager's got my back ...

I hope you had your pocket tape recorder running during that conversation, or you have nothing. You get caught carrying, your boss will never remember any of this, because I seriously doubt he will risk his job for yours. Doesn't matter what your credentials are, the fact is someone else just as smart can be hired. And if you do have a recording, you probably just have evidence that you and your boss conspired to violate company policy, which will get you both fired. (That would be the upside if you were mad enough -- you'd still go out the door, but you'd take someone with you.)

Like a couple others said, I would just go ahead and carry, and keep my mouth shut. I worked for a number of years for an employer that acted as if they were scared to death of small arms and people carrying them, but if I violated their rules, it wasn't just a matter of finding a new employer -- it could conceivably be Article 15,court-martial, loss of rank/pension, dishonorable discharge, felony, etc etc. That's behind me now, and now I will not work for someone who thinks their bank acccount or "property rights" is more important than my self-defense.

Which brings me to this quote from a few posts back:

And my hesitation is soley based on the liability that a jury may find I have by allowing you to carry or knowing you carry and not taking actions to prohibit it. As an employer I would not be willing to risk my company and the jobs of all those that work for me to support ones right to carry.

I understand this is the way that companies and corporations think -- but more clearly stated is that it means the company's financial liability is more important than my life. This is not a morally supportable position. It is driven in part by the laws that we have, but that does not make it just. I have enough libertarian leanings to much prefer that the government stay out of business workings -- especially Obamagovernment -- but denying concealed carry to employees is one area where employers and business owners should be held to strict liability for any violent act that befalls the employee.

I have been working on a little research project for someone else concerning individuals with CHLs that defend themselves. In the overwhelming majority of cases the CHL holder does good. Once in a great while he gets hurt, and even rarer he hurts an bystander -- but it is a pretty small risk. There is no moral case for companies to deny CHL carry.

[aardwolf]

Outside of the company's premises there's virtually no way they'll find out you're carrying unless you need to use the gun to save your life. If that happens, I think it's better to be unemployed than dead.

[TxFig]

I understand this is the way that companies and corporations think -- but more clearly stated is that it means the company's financial liability is more important than my life. This is not a morally supportable position.

Very well stated.

[Budge]

Outside of the company's premises there's virtually no way they'll find out you're carrying unless you need to use the gun to save your life. If that happens, I think it's better to be unemployed than dead.

Absolutely. A previous manager of mine was carrying in a company car. He had his CHL and had been in VERY good standing with the company for many years. He was attacked by two men on the side of the freeway after a fender-bender. They beat the heck out of him and were threatening to kill him before he finally managed to crawl back to his car to retrieve his gun. He shot them both in self defense. Both men lived and were charged and convicted. No charges were brought against the manager. BUT, he was forced into early retirement because he violated a written company policy about weapons in company vehicles. They were patting him on the back as they were showing him the door. I'll bet that if you ask him if it was worth being fired, he'd say "Yes!"

I say do what you need to do DISCRETELY, and be prepared to accept the consequences should the day come that you need to act. The company is just protecting itself, and so should you.