Employer Wants To Know About Firearms/CHL

[ShootDontTalk]

Somehow it is hard for me to fathom the amount of negative reaction an intrusive instrument like this might generate for what is, by their own admission, a field hurting for skilled employees should the media find out. Every medical system I am aware of spends huge sums of money to recruit doctors and nurses. The boards of those facilities deplore that condition, yet they continue to shove employees out the door faster than they can lure them in. Many are forced to pay 5 to 10 times a normal salary for temp services to meet staffing requirements. If skilled medical employees leave in droves, it could have disastrous consequences for the facility.

Even though you are not in patient care, asking all the staff such blatantly intrusive questions while they are assaulted with alarmingly regularity in ER's across the state making many fear for their lives every shift, makes little sense. Some staff have already hinted that concealed firearms are being carried across 30.06 postings into such facilities. Even though I'm not a fan of regulation, I believe it is time for the Legislature to step in and address some of these issues. I applaud the change in the law making it the same felony to assault a doctor or nurse as a police officer yet that law is not much deterrent to the regular weekend visitors to the ER.

I know a lot of this first-hand as the recently retired Mrs. SDT was assaulted quite a few times in her 30 year ER career. The hospital response? Untrained, unarmed security guards who were as useful as a feather in a tornado.

[cb1000rider]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal for them to ask any of this as a condition of employment....this stuff is insurance stuff, medical stuff, it has absolutely nothing to do with how good you are at your job.

I don't know what the occupation is, but in some - medical conditions and mental health are valid concerns..

It's like anything else, you can refuse to answer, but you won't get employed.

[VMI77]

I've not encountered anything this intrusive in my employment, but have been given some intrusive forms to sign either invading my privacy, granting permission for such an invasion, or to endorse something I'm against. I cross out all the language I disagree with or any language granting consent or admission to anything I don't want to consent to or admit. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually reads or cares about some of these forms or they're just going through the motions, since I've never gotten any push back.

This kind of stuff is an alarming trend. We just got a notice from the USPS that in order to keep our PO Box we have to provide two sets of ID (a second ID, for example, can be the deed to our home, bank account statements, etc). Not only does the box holder have to physically come to the PO and provide these two forms of ID, EVERY person using the box has to as well....so my son, in law school out of state, and my elderly mother in assisted living, also must appear and provide two forms of ID. Not gonna happen. I'm not filling out their form, which asks for all kinds of personal information, nor am I showing up and providing them with additional ID. I will ignore the form and they will have the option to close my PO box. All of us are going to be forced to take a stand on stuff like this pretty soon.

[lfinsr]

I just got something in the mail from our bank requesting my wife's race and job title. I threw it in the trash and will change banks if necessary. If we don't start pushing back it will only get worse.

Larry

[mojo84]

I've not encountered anything this intrusive in my employment, but have been given some intrusive forms to sign either invading my privacy, granting permission for such an invasion, or to endorse something I'm against. I cross out all the language I disagree with or any language granting consent or admission to anything I don't want to consent to or admit. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually reads or cares about some of these forms or they're just going through the motions, since I've never gotten any push back.

This kind of stuff is an alarming trend. We just got a notice from the USPS that in order to keep our PO Box we have to provide two sets of ID (a second ID, for example, can be the deed to our home, bank account statements, etc). Not only does the box holder have to physically come to the PO and provide these two forms of ID, EVERY person using the box has to as well....so my son, in law school out of state, and my elderly mother in assisted living, also must appear and provide two forms of ID. Not gonna happen. I'm not filling out their form, which asks for all kinds of personal information, nor am I showing up and providing them with additional ID. I will ignore the form and they will have the option to close my PO box. All of us are going to be forced to take a stand on stuff like this pretty soon.

I'm sure it's all in the name of safety from terrorism and the war on drugs. I recently saw a show on TV that drug dealers are now sending their deliveries via USPS.

It's for your own good that you have no privacy.

[Dori]

They may be able to let you go if you don't comply but it's tough to imagine if would be a termination "for cause" that would deny benefits. But IANAL.

[A-R]

Response: please submit all company, board member, and upper management financial, health, and personal information as well as all trade secrets and future plans. Upon receipt of same you'll receive the request information from me.

[TexasGal]

This is the wave of the near future. In the healthcare systems, many are combining into ever larger entities. It becomes difficult to "leave" one place because of something like this and find similar work elsewhere when they all belong to the same parent network. Obviously the assumption is if you have passed background checks to have a CHL, that does not matter and you are still considered an undesirable employee just because you want to carry a gun under any circumstances illegal or legal.

If employees sign this rather than grouping together to protest, then we will soon have this as the standard questionnaire to work virtually anywhere.

[remington79]

I'm starting to draw a deeper and deeper line in the sand than in the past. For example at the doctor I only answer questions that are medical in nature so they can treat me better. I would have done what my friend did and not fill out the extended census form that wants to know when you go to work. I didn't comply with the Unaffordable Uncaring Act for various reasons. If I was in CT or NY I wouldn't comply with those so called new registration laws. My friends mom is a registered ER operating room nurse and she and all of her coworkers don't comply with flu vaccines. Part of it has to do with the mercury and formaldehyde warnings. They looked at the packaging and that was all they had to see.

If I were you I would do as the others said and not comply and call an attorney. Once you give that information out you will never get it back. The only time I gave out med info for a job was when I worked in law enforcement. I could understand that and that info was needed at the beginning of the application process. They didn't' ask about "weapons" and vaccines. The time is now to start taking a stand. People are trying more than ever to stick their noses where they don't belong.

[jmorris]

How to submit a HIPPA violation.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/

But check the "Before you file" link first.

[redfeather crow]

I will not answer personal questions like that. I do the inscrutable act instead. For some reason, the bigger the corporation the faster they back off.

[The Annoyed Man]

So my questions are:

1) Would there be any way for an employer to query the DPS regarding an employee's CHL status?
2) Can anyone provide a referral for counsel that may be able to assist with at least the firearms related questions?
3) General thoughts from other forum members regarding this (beyond "You ought to find another job).

Thanks

I haven't read through the thread, but I'm sure that others have answered #1, which is that nobody except a law enforcement agency can query the CHL database about you.

I'm not going to tell you to "get another job", but I am going to say that if nobody challenges them on the appropriateness of the gun questions, then they will keep pushing it. My own inclination would be to simply refuse to answer those questions, and if challenged, ask them if they are going to fire me for refusing to answer personal questions which have no bearing on my ability to perform the job.......particularly since I have been performing the job satisfactorily all along. If it came down to it, I would make them fire me. A good lawyer can do something with that.

I also fully realize that you may not have that kind of freedom of choice, and you may have dependents that make it difficult for you to exercise those kinds of options. So I gave you my "this is what I would do" response, but I don't expect that my response ought to be your response.

[Amonix]

I work for a large healthcare hospital system. I had a similar form provided to me as part of my annual health screening. I failed to answer those questions. I do not directly deal with patient care (IT) and thus my responses to those questions are null and void. A few of my co-workers know about my CHL as they have been in the car with me one time when I got stopped (38 in a 35), being the son of a police officer I always announce that I am armed for both their awareness and my safety.

Truly my repairing the IT systems in our facilities does not depend on my weapon that is left securely in my car when I go into the office (we are both 30.06 and prevented by company policies). As long as I am on the clock and performing my job role I adhere to our corporate policy. When I am off the clock I adhere to the state law. If my boss knows about my CHL it doesn't bother me. I don't think anyone I work with cares.

Personally, after the shooting at a hospital in Reno I would rather carry my weapon. We have several off-duty officers working it as an extra job and 2 armed security guards but still, it is like our saying with stroke patients "Time is brain." and for me that is "Time is life". I do understand and do see the hospital side of wanting to protect our patients but the officers don't change ammo when they come in to the hospital and there is plenty of o2 running through the facility. We are waiting to see if our administration would allow some of the CHL's who wish to carry at work will. Though I don't think this would apply to me as I am not a facility employee but a corporate employee that is subject to those HR policies.

[Redneck_Buddha]

I'd head straight to an employment attorney.

[TexasGal]

I am betting none of that is actually against the law for an employer to ask an employee. I hate to say it, but we need a law change that protects an employee from an employer asking if they have a CHL. In Texas, they can fire you for refusing to answer that if they want to...or for many other reasons if they take a dislike to you. Good luck getting a direct answer in writing as to the "actual" reason for firing you. It's better if they are not allowed to even ask you.