Guns in the workplace: Safety hazard?
March 30, 2010 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, What do you think?, workplace violence
PDF Another state will soon allow workers to keep guns in their vehicles’ locked trunks and glove compartments in companies’ parking lots.
Indiana’s new law will take effect July 1, 2010.
In an opinion piece in the Northwest Indiana Times, lawyer James Jorgensen says the new law could adversely affect employers and the workplace.
He points to Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2007, there were 16,840 nonfatal assaults and violent acts in the workplace. The same year, 11% of workplace fatalities were homicides. Homicide has been one of the top four causes of workplace deaths since 1992.
Jorgensen points out, correctly, that OSHA considers workplace violence as an occupational hazard.
And even though OSHA doesn’t have a workplace violence standard, the agency can invoke the General Duty Clause to fine employers for workplace violence that causes injury or death.
Jorgensen’s advice: Companies need to adopt workplace violence policies with clear statements of consequences for violations.
What do you think about workers keeping guns in their locked vehicles in your company’s parking lot? Does your company address that in its workplace violence policy? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Loading ...
March 30th, 2010 at 6:16 am
[...] and glove compartments in companies’ parking lots. Read more from the original source: Guns in the workplace: Safety hazard? | SafetyNewsAlert.com … AKPC_IDS += "1230,";Popularity: unranked [?] Share and [...]
March 30th, 2010 at 9:18 am
We are in Wisconsin and I can guarentee that during deer hunting season, 25% or more of our employees have rifles in their car so they can go shoot Bambi after work. Some of our management is included in that 25% so it has been discussed as a concern, but we all believe whether there is a rule in place or not, if someone wants to bring a gun into work, a rule or policy isn’t going to stop that.
March 30th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I would give my company employees permission to carry a firearm on the job as well. This could only make the workplace safer, since you can never keep a homicidal criminal from entering with a gun by not giving them permission. I would encourage and train employees with moral boosting company shooting events and competitions.
March 31st, 2010 at 6:44 am
As a former Police Officer I can tell you that by making a policy will not stop the criminal. Having a gun on the way to work to protect myself and family is guarenteed by the constitution! the company I now work for has a strict policy of no guns which I adhear to because I need my job but too many times you hear of assults on the way to work and on the way home. I pray this will not happen to me just because of a policy on no firearms on company property. As a former officer I recieved death threats which were very real and still are today but due this policy I’m not armed to protect myself on the way to and from work.
April 6th, 2010 at 8:40 am
He points out some of the statistics on workplace violence: he doesn’t point out that statistically, most workplaces are safer from violence than the public arena or many communities at large. He stops just short of making the claim that having firearms in the parking lot will lead to increased violence: that’s good that he doesn’t quite make that claim, because he can’t justify it. The truth is that we have clear evidence that the known presence of firearms actually reduces both violence and the threat of violence. He also doesn’t mention the documented civil cases where employers have successfully sued their employer for prohibiting their possession of firearms in personal vehicles, when they were left defenseless in instances during travel to the workplace. He ALSO doesn’t mention that the statistical probability of gun violence goes UP in “gun-free zones”, not down.
The article says the writer “practices law … in Indiana”: keep practicing, dude.
April 6th, 2010 at 8:53 am
We already have laws against murder and other violent crimes. Another law or policy against guns is not going to deter a violent employee.
I suggest enforcing the laws we already have instead. Start holding people accountable to follow the existing laws, regardless of alcohol/drug use, emotional distress, abuse received as a child, and other fabricated excuses.
I also suggest making prison an actual deterent to crime - a small cell with a toilet and a sink and three simple meals a day. No cable TV, no expensive fitness centers, no park like resorts for wealthy and celebrity offenders.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Like Jason’s employer, my company is also located in a rural area and many of our employees are hunters. Our policy states hunting weapons may be kept in a locked case which is then locked inside the employee’s car.
Our workplace violence policy and training program is supposed to prevent situations from escalating to the point where an employee would feel the need to resort to violence.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:36 am
“Jorgensen points out, correctly, that OSHA considers workplace violence as an occupational hazard.
And even though OSHA doesn’t have a workplace violence standard, the agency can invoke the General Duty Clause to fine employers for workplace violence that causes injury or death.”
What MR. Jorenesen, fails to tell you is this line of bull has already been tried in the Fed. Courts in OK and FL and the appeals court have thrown this out. OSHA has no authority over Fire arms in any way or shape. Even in the work place. Next he fails to tell you those 11% of workplace fatalities that were homicides, where mostly stores, gas stations, hotels, and other work places that keep money on site.
So if you do not want them on your work location then read the law and in most state if the parking is not a public parking i.e. it has controls to keep the public out then you can keep the guns off you location.
April 6th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Any gun is a safety hazard.
April 6th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Here is my take on it…. Businesses are supposed to create an environment reasonably free of hazards. We can’t discriminate - so we can’t say, “if you are going hunting after work, then you are able to carry a firearm for that purpose” - and not for personal protection. If we do this we could be creating a policy that is biased. So, I being cautious, would prefer that we, as a business, be able to have a policy that bans weapons from the workplace. My apologies to the hunters, but it’s just not the place.
April 6th, 2010 at 11:04 am
What I failed to see entangled in the statistics were facts regarding how many cases of work place violence involved firearms and of those instances how many include spontaneous acts of violence. No one goes to work with a gun in general then becomes agitated to the level of “breaking point” goes out to the car for their gun. Workplace violence involving firearms usually is the result of some premeditation at which point a rule that puts their job in jeopardy will never have greater consequences of the law that makes muder or assault illegal.
If you take the guns from law abiding citizens then soon enough the only people with gns will be the criminals. Check the statistics of the lenght of an active shooter situation in the workplace and then compare that to police response and intervention times. Better yet show me one case of police response being timely enough to actually limit the effects of the active shooter.
Finally, the most dangerous place for my firearm is locked up in my car parked in an unsecured area to be broken into and stolen. The safest place for it is on my hip nder my control. The safest policy a company could present would be to allow them to be properly stored and locked in the car, have the area monitored (by an armed guard) against theft and not allow anyone to access their car unless they are leaving for the day. That way when you treat an employee like dirt or allow workplace “bullying” to continue, Mr. Violent Tyrant can’t go get his gun an return to the building.
Remember, an armed society is a polite society.
April 6th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Why is it that we allow company’s, corporations, cities, municipalities, etc… To override rights that are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution ? I think everyone here agrees that there is no law that is going to stop a mentally incapacitated person from attemping to do harm to others (with a firearm or any other tool). There may be a few of those folks who think twice before carrying out a terrible act if they were aware of armed citizens being there, there may be others that dont get the chance to accrue a large “body count” because of those armed citizens! Shouldnt deterrence be a part of all workplace violence plans…
April 6th, 2010 at 11:48 am
To the statement gun are a hazard. we kill 30,000 to 50,000 people each years with cars depending what year you look at.
killed 4,000 over 5 years at war. a 18 to 21 year old has a better chance of living per 100,000. In a war zone then on our major cities. Witch by the way are the one with the most gun laws.
We killed right at 2000 in 3 day in New Orlines with Katrina and the government toke the guns from the home owners but no one went to jail for that.
Is this even a debate we need to have or should we looks at areas that really kill people? How many companies buy the safety vehicle for their employee to work out of or do we just buy the one that will do the job for the lose cost? how many companies resrick the number of hours that can be driven in a day for there salry team members, or what hours the can drive. ie. how many time have we got up at 3 am to drive some where for a 8am meeting.
April 6th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
James,
Have you worked in a safety related or HR related position within an organization? I understand that there should be restrictions on the hours that one drives if they are a commercial driver. This being said, having one more thing, that is a hazard within parking lot distance from the employees is a problem?
Joe,
Re: Premeditation - during a termination or RIF people get very excited. Also, there are other people who just fly off the handle. While I want to educate my workforce to not fly off the handle it’s a process that doesn’t happen overnight. Someone who may be generally remorseful later may feel very empowered by his gun at the moment that he/she takes someones life. So think of it that way.
I have no problem with the right to bear arms. I don’t want weapons in the workplace. It’s not the place. Thanks for hearing me.
Melissa
April 6th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
If you pass through neighborhoods on the way to/from work that require you to be armed, then its likely that the firearm in your parked car will not be safe. I used to carry a gun for my job, and know of colleagues whose guns were stolen from their cars-or with their cars. There was also the guy who went after the boss with his gun-and was fortunately wrestled to the ground before getting off a shot. It’s like they say, if you haven’t got stress, you haven’t got a job. I worked with law enforcement professionals who sometimes did dumb things. There is no way I would trust civilians to behave better. Keep guns out of the workplace. If someone gets shot on the job and there are no company rules or diligence, his/her loved ones are not going to sue the founding fathers.
April 6th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
According to the FBI most mass shootings take place in gun free zones.
Utah’s new law that releases a company and its supervisors from liability is just the kind of legislation we need so that we are open to the possibility of defending ourselves when the police and the employer cannot. In my area it takes an average of 8 minutes once 911 answers the call with the possibility of being on hold for another 10 minutes due to a backed up 911 call center. What could happen in 18 minutes if you have a crazed person with a gun standing in your office? Also in case you have not noticed, most crazed mass murderers are not obeying the current laws or company rules anyway, therefore why would any company prevent their sane employees from defending themselves by enacting a policy that only aids criminals commit mass murder.
Last point is to look at the numbers. Since most states have enacted laws to make concealed carry easier… murder rates have dropped in the US. While in Canada, over roughly the same time period, they made excessive restrictions on firearms and guess what, their murder rate has risen significantly… (Canada is now in the process of repealing many of its over restrictive gun laws)Which makes more sense?
Mass shooters are generally cowards who wish to make a point. They usually will not commit the assault if they don’t think they will have the opportunity to make their point.
April 7th, 2010 at 7:50 am
It is incerdible to know that most people who claim the need to carry their guns, is for their protection. From who? Other people who also want to carry guns for the same reason?
I am sorry to say, that in a workplace, the employer also have the obligation to protect those who are too happen to go to work and not worry about watching their backs from someone who is anxious to show off.
Unfortunately, most people who own guns, are much too proud to announce that they own one and will not hesitate to use it on anybody who may teak them off……………. second of all, these proud gun owners also have such short fuse.
unless one is working as law enforcer……….guns should be kept at home (if there is a need for one) not in a workplace……….. People, hello……….. you go to work not go hunting!
April 7th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Unfortunately, most people who own guns, are much too proud to announce that they own one and will not hesitate to use it on anybody who may teak them off……………. second of all, these proud gun owners also have such short fuse.
If your statement is true then with number of gun in the USA then we should have a killing rate 1000 time more then what we do.
Yes I go to work to work but I like to go to the range after work, like some like to go play base ball they have bats in their car are then not a weapon and have been used to kill with.
History facts
Pre the FBI no legally own machine gun has ever been use in a crime.
The USSR never had a plan to invade the main land USA in the cold war do to the fact the counties privet citizen was to heavily armed.
Dec 8, 1942 ret generals where pulled out of retirement to form a boarder defense with the local hunter and trapper they used their own guns.
I take you have never read the federal’s papers. An unarmed citizenry is controlled by the government, but a armed citizenry can control the government and remove it when it be could absolute corrupt.
I could go on and on with this history I do not believe we look at facts when we make judgments on this issue like so many other issue we rely on emotions. The very thing that make one so afraid of people have guns in their cars.
So it brings me back to my early point, if you are afraid of a employee going off with a “short Fuse” why are we keeping them in the work place? if they have “short Fuse” that keeps going off in the work place are they not make it a hostile environment for other to work in.
so again why are we keeping these short fuse?
April 7th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Ramayane Platek Says:
Unfortunately, most people who own guns, are much too proud to announce that they own one and will not hesitate to use it on anybody who may teak them off……………. second of all, these proud gun owners also have such short fuse.
Ramayane,
I personally know of at least 20 people at our facility of 500 that have current CCW permits, yet are not authorized to carry at work, but some do. None of which has ever presented a problem.
We have in fact had problems with others involving threats or assaults have been carried out by people that do not normally carry including one that went home to get a gun to commit the assault against his supervisor, knowing that it was against policy and knowing he would lose his job… it didn’t matter.
As I have stated above, mass shooters are generally cowards who wish to make a point. They usually will not commit the assault if they don’t think they will have the opportunity to make their point. If they know they will be stopped without proving their point, they will usually seek a softer target thereby saving lives in your place of employment.
April 7th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
James,
Help me understand…
“The USSR never had a plan to invade the main land USA in the cold war do to the fact the counties privet citizen was to heavily armed.” — Do you really think the USSR did not invade the US because the private citizens were too heavily armed? Or could it have been because of the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction due to the Nuclear Deterrent? Probably the same reason the US didn’t invade the USSR.
“Dec 8, 1942 ret generals where pulled out of retirement to form a boarder defense with the local hunter and trapper they used their own guns.” — I’m not sure of the significance of the date, but were the retired generals, hunters and trappers our main defense, or was it the strongest military in the world?
“I take you have never read the federal’s papers. An unarmed citizenry is controlled by the government, but a armed citizenry can control the government and remove it when it be could absolute corrupt.” — Were they referring to the government in the 18th century, or do you think this applies to our society today?
“…if you are afraid of a employee going off with a “short Fuse” why are we keeping them in the work place?” — Are you saying we should fire those with short fuses so they don’t shoot us with their guns?
April 8th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Jon,
You wrote “As I have stated above, mass shooters are generally cowards who wish to make a point. They usually will not commit the assault if they don’t think they will have the opportunity to make their point. If they know they will be stopped without proving their point, they will usually seek a softer target thereby saving lives in your place of employment.”
How and why does a mass shooter have a gun? And should we take comfort in your assessment that the mass shooter will shoot someone else, just no one at work?
April 8th, 2010 at 10:31 am
James & th,
From my recollection of these events it was Japan who chose not to invade the mainland because of the armed status of the United States citizens.
I personally am not aware of the retired general thing, but it seems plausible, I’ll try to check into it a little more later.
As for the Federalist papers, though it really does not apply to work, yes it does apply to today as much as it did in the 18th century. If a government goes corrupt, you need the option to remove it. If you don’t think that is possible in this day and age, look around, many of the most successful battles in the recent past is the small guy going up against the powerful country on home turf.
Yes, if an employee shows that he or she or it cannot control them self in a respectable manner at work, they should not be there.
April 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
th,
Usually a mass shooter does not normally carry a firearm. They usually pre-meditate their actions and choose to bring the firearm to a place where they feel safe committing a horrific crime, usually in a gun free zone if what the FBI says is correct. Company policies do not affect their thinking.
As for the second part of your question, yes we should take some comfort because if they don’t feel comfortable that they can shoot up your whole office, generally they will choose to commit suicide or try to take out a softer target such as a supervisor. While any innocent death is a tragedy, one or two innocent lives lost are always better than ten or twelve innocent lives being stopped short.
April 8th, 2010 at 11:35 am
th,
A little perspective on my background. I applied for a conceal carry permit in 1993 after having a group of druggies chase me down and ram my vehicle for doing snow removal on private property at nine o’clock at night. Previous to that incident I had a driver who thought I wasn’t driving fast enough in my company vehicle cut me off, stop in front of me and pull out a baseball bat to threaten me, luckily I had an axe.
After receiving my concealed carry permit, I have stopped at least five major crimes including two aggravated assaults with a firearm. Of all these crimes I have been fortunate enough to assist with, I have only need to draw my firearm twice and I have never fired one round as of this day, the mere fact that I had a firearm may have stopped two homicides. If not for the option to carry I am fairly confident that today we would have at least 12 or more victims with their families grieving their loss every day.
April 8th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Jon,
I appreciate your concern to protect yourself and to help others. And I don’t doubt you were able to stop 2 murders. However, there are too many guns available, and I don’t see that the solution to that problem is to add more guns. Correct me if I’m wrong, but gun supporters seem to say that if more “law abiding” citizens had guns, we would all be safer. That seems to be giving up and giving in. How do you know who is “law abiding”. I understand the permit requirements, background checks, etc. But how many people have been killed by a legal gun owned by a previously “law abiding” citizen. The argument goes “Enforce existing laws, impose stiffer penalties.” But what about the person who was killed by the previously law abiding citizen who is now a criminal?
I believe guns should be controlled, and in the hands of law enforcement and the military only. It may be too late, the horse is out of the barn, but we should be focusing on getting rid of guns, instead of arming law abiding citizens. You say you prevented others from being killed. But what if there was a shootout, how many others could have been killed? You could have been killed. What about kids shot in drive by shootings? The Chicago Sun Times reported that 508 school children were shot from September 2007 through December 2008. Should they have guns also? This is just crazy.
April 9th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Jon
you will find the retired general thing in the 1942 America riflemen I forget what month it was I will have to go thru some of my old one to fine the month. i myself never know it until ran across it in the old America riflemen . As for japans issue you are right. Also if you read some of the Books form the former USSR general you will that to be true for the old USSR.
Th,
508 school children where shot from 07 to 08. Ok I will give 508 school age but not that they were at school or that they were not drops. School children are up to age 18.
But I must ask this. if teaching about drug prevents drug use and teaching about sex help bring down teenage baby rate, then why would not teaching gun safety help bring down accidental firearm deaths?
As to you point about only law enforcement and the military should have then please read the short history I gave about. But does that mean that when I retired from the army I need to give my guns to the government or can I still keep them. I take you never live in a country that only the government can have guns. Have you ever been to the a country where the government has told control of it people I recommend you try it for a few years then come back and see if you have the same views.
You are only a law abiding citizen as long as the government wants you to be. For what is ok today may not be tomorrow.
but it is good we can have this talk with out everyone get nasty to each other now if we can just teach other to do this
So shall we say we will not meat in the 1/2 way on this one
all have a great day.
April 9th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Th,
As for the date 1942 Dec & 1942 the japans boom US. yes at that time they where a key part of you defense do to the fact we were not the stronger army in the world, we had down size after ww1 to nothing.
As for getting rid of a short fuses. It not about the gun it about keeping the work place safe. if we where to do a RCA on every work place violence issue i would bet there were signs that it was going to happen.
As to federal’s papers you should read them you would be amassed how much they still apply. The Berlin wall can down in Nov 1998. The last person shoot trying to go over the wall was Feb of 1998. So when new looks at that history just they still apply in today’s world.
April 9th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Lets face it, if someone wants to shoot up a workplace, the gun can be brought from home just as simple as getting it out of a car - so far, in all of the workplace violence news stories, I never hear where the gun was stored - heck, a lot of the violence that is taking place is from people not even working at the operation. The focus should be on knowing the employees and being prepared. I am not for giving up any of my constitutional rights in any way….
April 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
th,
As for controlling guns, how would you go about collecting the millions of guns held by criminals in this country? Canada, Britain and Australia have all tried this in the recent past and all have found their death rates soaring because guess what… the law abiding people turned in their guns, but the criminals did not. That is why Canada and Britain are in the process of repealing these well intended but unrealistic laws. They can’t work.
P.S. Check out the 20/20 reports from John Stossel on gun control (2) April 2007, (1) March 2008
April 9th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
James, the world has changed since the adoption of the 2nd amendment. Back then, there were state militias formed to defend the states. Standing armies were not trusted, were used by European rulers as tools of oppression, and the US wanted to protect from that. In the War of Independence, there was a regular Army, but also state militias did much of the fighting. Going forward to the days of the Wild West, much of the country was not governed by laws as it is today. I think it is a stretch to think that the US would turn into a government you refer to that controls the people as you suggest. Besides, if the US Government decided to turn the military on its citizens, who is going to stop them? You, Jon, and the others in this blog with your guns? Are you and the others organized enough to defend the country from the attacks of foreign countries? That’s what we have a military for. I think the intent of the 2nd amendment was for the militias, and to defend the states.
Jon, I can’t argue with you. In fact I said as much… that it may be too late. It is unfortunate that it has gotten to this point. But I’m not ready to throw in the towel. I can’t see how more guns will make things better. The more guns that “law abiding” citizens obtain, the more guns that criminals will get hold of. I don’t see any end to this. Call me a bleeding liberal, which is ok with me because I am, but I respectfully suggest that your right to have a gun puts the common good of all society in peril.
April 12th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
th,
First, as for a standing army, yes we do need one. no doubt about it. I’ll try to phase this to sound as little as a whack job as I can, but with this subject, I know it will be an uphill battle. The military is there to protect our borders and the interests of the country, but what are you going to do if our government goes rouge as countries do every now and again when someone decides they should have dominion over the people? How would you defend your rights? You motioned the superiority of the military over the average citizen but I don’t think you realize that the people would have the distinct advantage of knowing the land like the back of their hand, as has been proven in the middle east recently.
Next, I’m not sure where you are from, but you obviously have not spent a lot of time around firearms. Around the western United States, did you know that most firearms used by gangs are purchased “legally” by people in the gang that keep their nose clean so as they can purchase the firearms for their buddies. In other words, these are not being stolen to be used in crimes but are in fact purchased. We could go a long way in reducing gun crimes by actually punishing those who use them in crimes instead of slapping their wrists. If you were a gang member, would you be scared of doing six months to a year for using a firearm in a crime? That is the type of punishment that is being handed out in many communities. Now compare that with the old days, when a gang member would use a gun in a crime those days, they would usually end up on the front porch of the capital, wearing a new necklace…
Which would do more to keep someone from joining a gang in the first place, not seeing their friend for six months or seeing their friend hung on the nightly news. It may sound harsh, but that is the language that these people speak, unfortunately.
As for more guns more crime. What do you think the violent crime rate is in Switzerland where every household has a machine gun?…Yep, low, Now what do you think the violent crime rate in Australia has done in the few years since they took away the guns from the honest folks?…Yep, sky rocketed,
I grew up in a household that between my dad, three brothers, and myself, had around fifty firearms. Not once did any of us get hurt from a firearm. You see we were taught that a firearm is a tool. We were taught early what is wrong and right and how to listen to our moral compass. It’s about education. My 6 and 8 year old daughters, though too young to own their own guns already know the simple rules of firearm safety, if asked they know that your never point a firearm at anything you don’t intend to shoot, if they find a firearm, they know that the first choice is to guard the firearm and send someone else for an adult, but they also carry a whistle in case there is no one to send for help and they know how to put on a safety, remove a clip, clear a chamber and how to lock open the action. They do not know this from going shooting, because they are not quite ready for that yet. They know it because their dad doesn’t want them to find a toss away gun on the school grounds and end up dead. As stated above you usually can’t take them away from the criminals until it is too late, so being prepared for whatever you may cross is always your safest bet. Remember that when the cops are usually several minutes away, the average gun fight only lasts around 25 seconds and over ninety percent of the time when a firearm is drawn in self defense, no shots need to be fired.
April 12th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
th
This is a subject I put quite a bit of time studying and I am an avid gun collector as well as a Concealed Handgun Licensee. Bleeding heart liberals as yourself are the only group I hear of opposing gun ownership. Still to this day and recently upheld by the Supreme Court gun ownership and the right to self defense is the fabric this country is woven of. I know many law enforcement officers and upholders of the law that strongly disagree with you. On a daily basis judges, sheriffs and high ranking officials are urging law abiding citizens to arm themselves in the fight against crime. If you’d take the time to learn about firearms you may in fact be on the path to becoming a better citizen instead of setting by and whining about the rights we still have. I woulod suggest that if you look to stop violence then go after the right to free speech. It’s well known but rarely discussed that free speech leads to more violence than gun ownership does. I’ve seen more people punched in the face for something they said than I have seen or heard of people being shot. If the goal is to eliminate violence then legislate the bridling of the tongue. More wars and conflicts have been started over words than gunshots. By the way if guns kill people, then all of mine are defective!