OSHA won’t halt ‘guns at work’ law
March 13, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Pending Legislation, State and local law
A state law granting employees the right keep guns in their cars at work was recently given the thumbs-up by a federal court.
In 2004, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding employers from disciplining employees who keep firearms locked in cars parked on company property.
A group of businesses sued, claiming the law threatened workplace safety. A court agreed and overturned the law, ruling it violated the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, which gives employers a “general duty” to keep workplaces safe.
But that decision was overturned on appeal. The appeals court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has never claimed that allowing firearms on company property would violate the OSH Act. Therefore, there is no conflict between the state and federal law.
So-called “guns at work” laws are one of the latest trends in state employment legislation. Florida and Georgia have already passed similar legislation, and bills are being considered in Tennessee, Arizona and Texas. We’ll keep you posted.
Cite: Ramsey Winch, Inc. v. Henry
March 18th, 2009 at 10:35 am
We recently had to deal with a similar situation. In Ohio, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon if you meet the certification requirements and register with the sherrif’s office. We have a policy of no weapons on the premises of any facility. We have “gun lock boxes” with two of our programs where off duty law enforcement and others with weapons can lock their weapons up safely while on company grounds. The gun owner retains the key. These lock boxes are located at our main entrances and are the same used in jails and other facilities where weapons need to be checked prior to entry.
I have an employee who requested to carry a weapon to work (he walks to work many times and the neighborhoods he must traverse are very rough and crime ridden). He wants to be able to protect himself. He has provided copies of his weapons training and certification.
I went to several HR websites and asked what other HR professionals thought. Not one thought it was a good idea. Which amazed me. No one could say “why” they didn’t like the idea except to say they “feel” it would be wrong and unwise. I figured that knowing that the employee is trained, certified and that they have a weapon, gives the employer a heads up so that if the employee ever exhibits signs of stress or other problems, they could be addressed therefore making the workplace safer.
When I think that any employee could park in front of our facility on a public street and have a weapon in their car legally, and we would have no idea that they have the weapon or what training or certification. If the employee, could bring that weapon in and lock it in a lock box where they retain the key, the likelyhood of the weapon being stolen from the car and used in a crime on or around our premises is reduced.
It seems to me, knowing who has a weapon, certification, and training and regulating the possession of weapons to the lock box while at work is far more safer than wondering who has a weapon in their car right now.
Personally, I know three employees who have weapons in their cars on the street right now. I believe they all are trained and certified, but I have no way to compel them to show me. If we had a policy that employees need to provide a copy of their certification and training and “lock” their weapons in the lock boxes while at work, then it becomes easier to identify the employee who does not participate and has a weapon in their car. The police could be alerted to check for the permit and training.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I have to agree that a common reaction to this issue is based more on emotion than logic – people unfamiliar with firearms tend to react that way. Making yet another rule about firearms, however, constitutes the proverbial “putting a bandaid on a cancer” – firearms themselves are simply rather basic items of 19th century machinery, and anyone who imagined that yet another piece of paper saying “no guns” would have any meaning to someone intending harm needs a major reality check. There are two effective means of dealing with real or potentially violent individuals. #1, Deal with the individual, firmly, fairly, consistently, never “looking the other way” and involving law enforcement if there is in fact any credible threat – and having the policies in place to do so. If all else fails, and an individual intending harm ignores the already voluminous strictures against doing so, means #2 is hoping like h**l someone who is trusted and knowledgeable *does* have a firearm readily available….
March 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Oh great! So a certified and trained employee with anger management issues becomes upset with his/her boss and goes out to the car to get it….
March 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Mike, I agree with you totally. Having had this debate with past officers of SHRM who over a period of years changed their stance from anti-gun to merely “the company should have the right to do what they want on their property” the articles in the SHRM Magazine were always severely bias and tend to set the minds of many HR professionals.
As in the instance of your employee who has to traverse a dangerous area to get to work on foot, my concern is the same for employees that may have the need to be able to use deadly force to protect themselves between work and home. To deprive them of that ability (or make them park along the public streets) is unconscionable.
There are few, if any, documented instances where an individual left the office/plant, went to their car and got a gun and came back in shooting. Those that did had long been identified by companies as being “troubled” individuals and in many cased should have been terminated long before the situation exploded.
There is no gun policy that can be uniformly enforced to prevent gun violence at work that most employees would tolerate 0 searches of private vehicles and property every time they return to teh premises. What can be done is uniformly enforce the behavior policies you should already have on the books to identify and terminate that person early in their rise to being an active threat.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I live and work in California. I am the HR Director at a security firm. There are many weapons in my work environment. In my past life, I was in law enforcement for 17 years. I am very comfortable around weapons, however, I recently laid off 31 guards and I often worry that some angry employee will work through the door armed and ready to kill (recently happened in Silicon Valley – CFO, COO and HR Manager murdered by a recently termed EE).
As far as the state of California is concerned, I do not believe that such legislation could ever pass here. There are too many private citizens, ex-felons and kids that are carrying concealed weapons and prepared to kill for the reason of the day.
I am from Georgia, when I move back there in a couple of years, I have every intention of being armed.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Elizabeth – individuals who are trained and certified for Concealed Carry throughout the United States have the lowest rate of criminal activity of any group in the country according to FBI statistics. They are much more thoroughly vetted for legal issues than anyone getting a driver’s license.
Unfortunately, once the intitial trauma and press coverage of “industrial homocides” goes away, the details of the investigation and facts leading up to these shootings is never reported or released for long after the public memory fades. This is unfortunate, as a close study of the facts will reveal the danger is much overblown.
As a manager, if you were threatened by a hostile ex-employee who was “going to get you”, how do you plan on protecting yourself between work and home/home and work – you won’t quit going to the grocery, picking your kids up, getting your hair done. At least current laws and the 2nd Amendment give you an option many wish to forfeit for others.
Use fact based research to study the issues and I think you will see your facility security issues and your personal safety is better served by stepped up screening of applicants with any history of violence, and quick, firm action on stopping work place harassment, training of managment to pay attention to behavior issues and “bullies” before they get out of hand.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Elizabeth, if you do have an employee with anger management issues, I strongly urge you to deal firmly with that employee, and those issues, and never, ever assume that there are any mental barriers to that employee taking violent action if they should reach that point. People contemplating violence do not waste their time seeking official permission to do so, and you cannot assume that with or without any form of official permission that they do not have access to violent means, and firearms are not even the most violent means available (explosives are generally considered such). There are a variety of means for taking violent action, and atempting to control the action through paper strictures against the means is pretty much a waste of time, effort, and resources that are much more effectively spent on identifying, dealing with, and if necessary removal and/or incarceration of those who would take violent action. And, much as we may dislike the concept, should someone intending violence actually do come and attempt to carry such out, the principle effect of creating strictures effective only on those for whom such is not needed, is to make it much more possible for that person to carry out their violent intentions.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If I did have an employee with anger management issues of which I was aware, I would not need to be strongly urged how to deal with that person. I have acted on that kind of issue before However, especially in these times, we don’t know who may just be pushed over the edge by bad news at work. I just received an emailed comment from someone in Califoronia who knows what I’m talking about.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that the passing of the “guns at work” law is the issue. The real problem with weapons at work has to do with those that have ALWAYS brought them, concealed on their person and are fully prepared to use them if necessary. I work in a manufacturing facility that has a significant population of workers on probation for various crimes and I have no doubt they are armed right this very minute. The worker with the permit and the weapon in his car is the least of my worries. And please, no comments on “better hiring” – even without the ex-cons, there is a huge population of workers in every place of employment currently engaged in some form of criminal activity – everything from drugs to carjacking – they just haven’t been caught yet. If a conflict ever breaks out in this facility, I would be grateful for somebody who was trained and certified – he/she might be a better shot! If, of course, he could get his gun out of the car or lockbox fast enough to be of any assistance.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
WOW! This was so much more discussion than on SHRM.
I have terminated employment for many employees over the past twenty years. Those that I knew to own firearms always caused me extra concern. Those that I knew were trained and certified caused me to be more confident that we would not have an incident. Those that I knew the least about and who either went completely passive or exploded into a tirade caused me the most concern.
For most people, I would rather know who owns a fire arm and what training they have. Most who own firearms are proud of their certifications and training. Granted, these people can have a bad day, week, month, etc. and are subject to depression and irrational thinking, but if I knew they had a weapon and saw anything out of the ordinary (loss of emotional self control, withdrawing from others, etc.) I would certainly approach them to see what help I can offer.
For the person that is mentally unbalanced, there is very little anyone can do to prevent a major incident. They won’t qualify for buying or owning a firearm (although they can always find one illegally). If they are known to be in possession of a firearm illegally, then law enforcement and the courts can intervene.
I have noticed that whenever I hear about someone going on a shooting spree, they never go to a police station or a National guard armory. They go to where there are a lot of people who they can reasonably assume are not armed; schools, shopping centers, most businesses, etc. When confronted with others that are armed, they generally take their own life. I also have heard that in areas where there are concealed carry laws, that violent crime actually goes down.
Then again, there is that concern that if you have guns readily discussed and brandished about, that there could be a sense that everyone SHOULD have one whether they have the training and maturity to keep one. This could lead to more people buying illegal guns and lying about their training and certifications to fit in. These would be the ones that would cause me the MOST concern in the workplace. Not sure what the final answer is.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
If you’re going to kill someone it doesn’t matter where the gun is. A few years ago the anti-gun lobby in ATL screamed about an employee who killed some of her supervisors at Georgia Power after she was fired. They, of course, said we need “waiting periods” to buy guns.
She went home, went to a gun store and bought a gun, spent a few days practicing with it, went back to the office, waited until it was a good time to reenter the building, and killed some workers.
In this new law, ONLY those who are licensed to carry legally are permitted to have a gun in their vehicle.
Think that will stop those law-breakers?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
A very good point, Melanie. In your case, as for many of us, *being* that trained and certified person can be highly advisable. Helpless victim, I trust, is not a career goal any of us aspire to, yet it is remarkable the degree of advocacy for such. And, although Heinlein’s cliche about an armed society is rather abhorrent, the relative peace of your workplace despite the presence of firearms is quite probably due to the awareness that there is a presence of firearms. Just because they’re criminal, doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Dale you’re absolutely right – they are not stupid or they wouldn’t have been hired in the first place. The point of my earlier rambling was to just point out that this “guns at work” law hardly opens the door to the firing range. Those that have wanted to be armed at work have always done so and always will – they haven’t waited on a law all these years.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
My condolences to Melanie and the work environment – I worked as both a Production Supervisor and HR Manager in an industry for several years where we hired a significant number of ex-cons and convicted felons. Not only did I find these individuals occasionally carrying in the building, but those other group of employees would carry in the buidling out of fear when in the restrooms, parking lots and breakrooms.
Where I work we have annual management meetings reviewing our emergency procedures and part of that is workplace violence. It takes a lot of brass to do HR work in a professional manner in your environment.
Protect yourself by planning meetings with witnesses, know where to secure yourself in case of an outbreak and know the necessary communications to the rest of the plant and law enforcement.
Mike R – SHRM did not allow a lot of “discussion” on the issue, as it was a hot topic for the past SHRM president and staff. I did get an editorial published in the SHRM magazine contesting SHRM’s position and the inaccurate portrayal of the SHRM survey data analysis, to my surprise.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Thanks Harold, I didn’t know that.
To Melanie:
Some of our facilities provide treatment and services to ex-offenders. These are the facilities that have the “lock boxes.”
Most offenders had drug or alcohol related crimes. They also have thinking errors where they do not fully evaluate the consequences of their actions and oftentimes convince themselves that their view point is right which gives them “license” to do whatever they choose. They tend to minimize the harm they do to others through their criminal activity, rationalize why they react the way they do, and tend to take a victim stance where they frame the situation as one where they are a victim of discrimination or unfair treatment and have no options but to act as they do.
While incarcerated most offenders are exposed to programs such as “Thinking For a Change” which helps them to communicate more effectively, exercise emotional self control, and to be aware of their feelings and beliefs, as well as the impact they have on others. Most do not pose a high risk for violence, but then again, anyone who feels they are cornered may strike out.
We won’t hire an offender until they have been off supervision for at least two years. We then take a look at how they coped over those two years. If they have problems with continued criminality, violence, substance abuse, etc. they will not be hired.
I understand that in most states, it is illegal to possess a firearm while on parole. Most will not risk a fire arms charge and violation of their parole agreement. They may boast about carrying a weapon and all sorts of bluster, but most do not have anything. If they show it, then there is a BIG problem. Any offender who is in possession of a firearm is a HUGE risk. They either percieve a THREAT and feel justified to carry or they percieve they have a RIGHT to carry regardless of what anyone tells them. Either way, they should be reported to police before they are involved in an incident.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I agree with Leu. If someone is intent on shooting people – it doesn’t matter whether the gun is allowed in the workplace or not. Having a gun and license to carry it just proves they have the knowledge and skill to use it -not that they are an emotionally stable person. If the scenerio plays out where someone has a gun and waves it around – are you going to have 10 people run out to their car for their guns and end up with a shoot out and how many more being hurt or killed? I really disagree with the idea of being allowed to carry a weapon to work.
By the way – I am for guns in general. My family have always been big on hunting and I agree with the right to bear arms. I just think, at work, it could quickly become an out of control horror for all.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:09 am
On the face of it, Linda, that does sound frightening, and is how I used to feel. I made the mistake of arguing the matter with my Brother, and, feeling rather bested, decided to research the matter and “show him.” What I found, however, in instance after instance, from the attempted massacre at the High School in Pearl MS (where the assistant principle retrieved a gun from his car and stopped the shooter), to the attempted massacres at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City (where the shooter was stopped by a non-resident off-duty police officer who was not supposed to have his gun in the mall) and the Tacoma Mall (stopped by an armed citizen), to the attempted massacre at the Appalachian School of Law (stopped by students who retrieved guns from their cars), that again and again “massacre” became “attempted massacre.” Perhaps you’ve never heard of these instances? Good. If people must “run amok” (a Malay word for acting in uncontrollable violent rage) or “go berserk” (ditto in old Norse), then I would rather have more we never hear of, than “win” my argument with my Brother.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
People have been bringing guns to work in their cars for years. As far as the safety aspect goes, I don’t think anything is going to change. I don’t think that a person who is likely to go off the deep end and shoot someone at work is likely to say “Oh goodie, now I can take my gun to work in my car so when I go off the deep end I can shoot someone at work!”. The gun has been there all along. Mine certainly has been. And I can honestly say that even as much as I have sometimes wanted to, I have never actually shot anyone in the workplace.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
This is the best discussion on “guns in the parking lot” and workplace viiolence blog conversation of any I have seen for the past few years. Very enlightening and educational comments.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
After 22 years of spot-less service, I was fired from Walt Disney World in May 2004 for forgetting that I had a gun in my locked car, after traveling over the weekend. I begged for any other type or length of punishment or discipline. Zero tolerance, and no chance of rehire for the REST OF MY LIFE. Disney claims they are exempt from the laws in the rest of the state.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
It occurs to me that we have spent so much time discussing guns in the workplace and have ignored for the most part “weapons” in the workplace and the safety concerns involved.
I would think that there are probably more assaults on the job from “other weapons” each year. I don’t know how frequently other weapons have been used in the workplace, such as knives, clubs, batons, numbchucks, crossbows, bows and arrows, blackjacks, etc. Our company policy actually addresses “weapons in the workplace.” Of course, some items like tools or a roll of quarters would not be considered a weapon until they are used as such.
Do to the nature of our clients in our programs, we are also conscience of the “weapons of convenience” that present themselves when broken furniture or other items are not removed.
I am not sure if anything else is considered, for instance poisons. I would think these would be covered under the OSHA MSDS program.
I guess we talk about and legislate about guns because of the general fear associated with them. Even our media would report a knifing or clubbing as an “assault” where a shooting is reported as a “shooting incident.”
March 26th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Why is my 3/20/09 comment about getting fired from Disney in 2004 for having a gun locked in my car still “awaiting moderation”???? I had/have a legal Concealed Weapons permit. Is someone afraid of getting sued by the Mouse for revealing the truth?
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I believe that unfortunately that in 2004 Floriday had not yet passed the law prohibiting the action they took against you. We do tend to work within a system of rules and laws – many we do not like.
Until Kentucky passed the law in 2007-09 disallowing companies from such action, you could get fired if the company rule existed.
This week there has been numerous multiple homicides across the country involving guns and one with only a knife. Rules and laws will not stop violence ramped up by pure emotion, but training of supervisors and HR types on how to keep emotional confrontations as low key as possible can work.
If anyone is interested in finding details on state laws around this issue, you can go to hte National Rifle Association website for various links. (If you don’t like the NRA, the website won’t shoot you and the information is accurate. I use it when planning trips where I may want to take a firearm for sport or protection.)
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
To Essie:
” I was fired from Walt Disney World in May 2004 for forgetting that I had a gun in my locked car, after traveling over the weekend.”
I would bet that you were fired for violating their policy on having weapons on company property. I would tend to believe that Florida is an “at will” state so that employers and employees are free to terminate employment for any reason so long as it doesn’t violate discrimination laws. I would also wonder that they may have other requirements for the industry that they are in which serves so many children and concerns of a weapon accidentally discharging or a child gaining access.
Some states are passing laws to prevent employers to terminate employees if they have state issued permits and can lawfully carry weapons in the state. Some states allow persons to conceal carry but do not interfere with company policies and don’t infringe on “at will” employment.
Here in OHIO the state permits a person to carry a concealed weapon if they meet the state requirements for certification. There are some places that are EXCLUDED from the right to carry which include courtrooms, liquor establishments, and schools. We currently have a policy that an employee may not have a weapon on company property. If they do, their employment will be terminated.
The rest of your post seemed to deal with their “zero tolerance policy” and your hope that they would have taken a more lenient stance with you based on your years of service. Many large organizations take a zero tolerance policy because of the RISK associated with a violation to health, safety, public image, and legal liability. Employees are informed and trained about these policies and they are strictly enforced to ensure compliance.
You may not have intended any harm, but while the weapon was on their property there was a risk of injury. Just because a person has a certification or license to carry, doesn’t mitigate all the potential risk of having a weapon. Could anyone (thief, co-worker, child) have unauthorized access to the weapon while in your vehicle? If the car caught fire, would fire responders and witnesses be aware of the risk of the weapon and ammunition discharging?
I am curious on how they found the weapon. If they searched vehicles daily, then every employee would have a constant reminder to NOT bring a weapon to work. If not, then of all their employees, how did you get singled out on the ONE day you forgot? Did you tell anyone? Could anyone else have overheard? Would it appear that you were boasting about having the weapon? Would it appear that you were challenging the policy?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Here’s another twist: What if someone at work ‘claims’ you have a firearm in your car and you don’t? What protections do you have from hysterical and retaliatory people with some other agenda or unqualified fear of firearms?