Anonymously asking company to update weapons policy?

[Oldgringo]

One issue might be that our corporate policy is written to cover all US sites. I know of a couple state-specific sections to cover California labor laws, but the corporate policies don't typically make state-by-state policy statements.

Texas came late to this rodeo. Oklahoma has had a similar law for years. It has been dragged through the courts and upheld. Georgia adopted one a couple of years ago. Any large corporation knows about this and is willfully ignoring it, if that is what they are doing.

By contrast, a few years back California passed a law requiring employers to provide the same benefits for unmarried domestic partners—straight or gay—that they provide for legally married couples. Many companies that had operations in California immediately made such a policy company-wide with little fuss.

I respect the attitude of modern-day Minutemen, but cruising under the radar has served me well for a long time.

BTW, my wife literally fired hundreds of people for violations of policy. Most were gross violations like faking time cards or stealing. A good manager can fire anyone. legally for some perfectly documented policy violation. If they decide after some incident to come up with a reason, they will offer you a transfer to the branch office in Burkina Faso.

- Jim

We're starting to wend our way home to the Pineywoods next week via the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Is Burkina Faso anywhere near our route home?

[seamusTX]

We're starting to wend our way home to the Pineywoods next week via the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Is Burkina Faso anywhere near our route home?

Burkina Faso is nowhere near where anyone wants to go.

I remember when it was the newest independent country in the world, which was quite a while back. The capital is Ouagadougou. I could just say Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, all day. They should make me the American ambassador.

Have a good drive back. Keep the greasy side down.

- Jim

[KaiserB]

My company has not updated their weapons policy since SB 321 took effect. I don't want to draw attention to myself, so it there an anonymous, free way to notify them that their policy violates the law and needs to be updated?

You should take out a personal ad like the serial killers do...

[KaiserB]

Another angle to conside is that modern printers have been equipped with some kind kind
of micro ID which is able to be read and traced back to a particular printer.

If you wrote such a letter and printed it on your home printer, it would seem unlikely that your company
would be able to do enough detective work to determine it was from you. Law enforcement would be more
likely to have the power to find out your home computer's secret ID.

But if you printed it off on a company printer, there's more of a chance that your IT people may be aware
of all the company printers' hidden ID's. They could narrow it down to your departmental printer, and you
could draw your employer's attention to you.

SIA

Just a nit to pick, an IP address is in no way indicated on a printed document, but IPs sending jobs to printers are. So following the advice to print at home or anywhere not at work is sound; but even a forensics expert would be hard pressed to prove you printed it. That said, your oils do leave prints on paper so keep it strictly professional or where gloves.

I am sure the police department would love to use some crime lab budget to trace printers by micro-characteristics. People currently can not get the police to run a $1500 DNA test to prove guilt or innocence on old cases (because the police do not have the funding for such things) so why would the police chase after "who printed this document" Especially when it does not involve any type of criminal activity.

[fratermus]

My company has not updated their weapons policy since SB 321 took effect. I don't want to draw attention to myself, so it there an anonymous, free way to notify them that their policy violates the law and needs to be updated?

If you are running Ubuntu or some other Debian derivative:

Code: Select all

sudo apt-get install mixmaster

will install mixmaster, a front end for a chained, anonymous remailer network. If anyone wants to PM me an email address I'll send you an anonymous email and you can see for yourself it it's identifiable.

There are also web-based remailers, but I prefer mixmaster for ease, configurability, and the ability to send dummy and redundant traffic.

[jimlongley]

Another angle to conside is that modern printers have been equipped with some kind kind
of micro ID which is able to be read and traced back to a particular printer.

I was about to call you paranoid (DragonFighter beat me to it anyways ), but apparently it is me that is naive.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/big-broth ... again/2031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/g ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both pretty reputable sources.

Well, that was weird in a really uber weird kind of way. Because I have installed and maintained literally thousands of printers, I was interested in the article, particularly any information on how they could accomplish resolution beyond the capability of most printers, but when I opened the article, my computer rebooted.

I am going to try it from a different computer later.

[RoyGBiv]

Another angle to conside is that modern printers have been equipped with some kind kind
of micro ID which is able to be read and traced back to a particular printer.

I was about to call you paranoid (DragonFighter beat me to it anyways ), but apparently it is me that is naive.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/big-broth ... again/2031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/g ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both pretty reputable sources.

Well, that was weird in a really uber weird kind of way. Because I have installed and maintained literally thousands of printers, I was interested in the article, particularly any information on how they could accomplish resolution beyond the capability of most printers, but when I opened the article, my computer rebooted.

I am going to try it from a different computer later.

It's a conspiracy of the highest order...

I didn't have any trouble with the links... pcworld and zdnet are fairly savvy places. It'd be a surprice to find a virus spreading from these sites, but certainly not impossible.

Maybe a flash issue?

[/offtopic]

[chlag01]

Update. I decided to leave the unenforceable policy alone, and did not notify. However, they have now stepped up their game. As of today, there are new 30.06 signs posted at the parking lot entrances. I'm guessing they are placed by the property manager of the business complex my employer leases from.

I've started a new thread asking whether they've exploited an SB 321 loophole by having the property manager prohibit storing firearms in the parking lot instead of the employer.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-- Frustrated

[tbrown]

Are you saying the parking lot isn't owned or managed by your employer?

[chlag01]

Are you saying the parking lot isn't owned or managed by your employer?

I don't know how the law would define it. The parking lot is shared among all of the tenants, of which my employer is one. Another wrinkle: One building is leased by the Baylor MBA program (which may fall under one of the SB 321 exemptions), so if Baylor sets a no-gun policy, does that policy affect all the other tenants that may share the parking lot?

[chlag01]

Another wrinkle: One building is leased by the Baylor MBA program (which may fall under one of the SB 321 exemptions), so if Baylor sets a no-gun policy, does that policy affect all the other tenants that may share the parking lot?

To answer my own question, I don't think Baylor qualifies for a SB 321 exception since they are not a charter school, school district, or k-12 private school.

But please move any further discussion on this aspect of the topic to my other thread since it is off topic to the original post.

[The Annoyed Man]

Update. I decided to leave the unenforceable policy alone, and did not notify. However, they have now stepped up their game. As of today, there are new 30.06 signs posted at the parking lot entrances. I'm guessing they are placed by the property manager of the business complex my employer leases from.

I've started a new thread asking whether they've exploited an SB 321 loophole by having the property manager prohibit storing firearms in the parking lot instead of the employer.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-- Frustrated

My response to your opening post would have been, "let sleeping dogs lie." Stirring a hornet's nest never results in a good day for the guy with the stick.

I suspect that, over the next 12-24 months we're going to see more and more businesses resort to what your company appears to have done—which is to band together with other tenants to ask the property managers to post 30.06 signs at the parking lot entrances. When that happens, we can look forward to another kerfuffle in the legislature, where SB321 passed with a specific intent. When businesses begin to defy that intent, it's gonna get ugly for a while, but I predict that in the long run, we will prevail.

Has there been any case-law on the posting of 30.06 signage at parking lot entrances yet? I remember that, early on, 30.06 was intended to include only the "premises," which did not include parking lots, and that a non-employee CHL would have the right to disarm and secure their weapon in the parking lot before entering the premises. More and more, I see references on this board to posted parking lots. What's the deal with that?

[tbrown]

I remember that, early on, 30.06 was intended to include only the "premises," which did not include parking lots

What's your source for that? I'm asking because the 30.06 law clearly says "property" (not "premises") same as the 30.05 law before it.

[seamusTX]

PC 30.06 may or may not apply to publicly accessible parking lots. Seeing as how no one has ever been prosecuted under 30.06, we'll never know.

I think the key point is that your employer can require searching your vehicle as a condition of employment (as many do). The owner of the property, who is not your employer and has no direct legal relation to you*, cannot search your vehicle. They can only ask, if they even care, and you can say No.

*I'm sure there is some kind of remote relation, like you would have with the property owners of a shopping mall that did not actually operate anything at the mall. This is common with malls.

- Jim

[tbrown]

I think the key point is that your employer can require searching your vehicle as a condition of employment (as many do). The owner of the property, who is not your employer and has no direct legal relation to you*, cannot search your vehicle. They can only ask, if they even care, and you can say No.

If he says No, they can tell him to leave and never come back, which is trespass notice under 30.05 if I'm not mistaken. If he refuses to leave, or he returns, he would then be trespassing. If he has a firearm that could upgrade the 30.05 trespassing offense.

It's maybe not such a big deal at a shopping mall where you can shop somewhere else pretty easily, but it could be a bigger problem if your employer's landlord won't allow you on their property.

I admit it's a very unlikely scenario but I also don't personally know anyone whose employer searches cars, except people who work for the government or some kind of critical infrastructure facility. Stories on the internet are a different kettle of fish.