OT: Guns at work or guilty until proven innocent

Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
Remind me to boycott these guys.

(CBS) When gun and corporate cultures clashed in southeast Oklahoma, Jimmy Wyatt got caught in the crossfire.

"I've had it for over 20 years ... They're very much a part of life," says Wyatt of his guns. "We all carry them."

But in 2002, as CBS News Correspondent Bill Whitaker reports, a surprise sweep of the parking lot found Wyatt and 11 other employees of paper giant Weyerhauser had guns locked in their vehicles, a violation of a new corporate policy. They all said they didn't know the policy had changed. They were fired almost on the spot.

"They done me wrong," says Wyatt of his employer. "Ruined my life, basically."

"I have a wife and five kids. I'm nearly on food stamps. My one girl just had to drop out of college. I'm nearly on food stamps."

But the largest local employer says these machines are designed for worker safety and guns are banned, even from the parking lot, for the same reason.

"If someone chose to, they could get that firearm out and do some serious damage," says Wanda Graham of Weyerhauser.

Weyerhauser says it's not just blowing smoke. Seventy-seven percent of workplace homicides are committed with guns. "Going Postal" - shorthand for workplace violence - stems from a 1986 Oklahoma post office shooting in which 14 people were killed.

"We are trying to provide a safe place for our employees to work here," says Graham.

Who would have thought that a small, local conflict in rural Oklahoma would trigger a kind of American Revolution?

Starting in this quiet place where the south meets the west, where Peggy's Cafe whips up breakfast and the regulars dish out opinions. Nearly everyone here has or carries a gun.

Here, it's a matter of rights and wrong.

"They're infringing on my rights to protect me and my property," says one café patron.

"Freedom of religion, freedom of speech - this is the 2nd Amendment - the right to bear arms," says another patron.

Folks got so incensed, local representative Jerry Ellis got the Oklahoma legislature to overwhelmingly pass a law giving residents the right to keep guns locked in their cars.

"The NRA believes that some form of this legislation will run in every state," says Ellis. "South Carolina has contacted me."

The new law is on hold for now. Big businesses are suing to block it. Despite threats of boycott, Weyerhauser is hanging tough. And Wyatt is barely hanging on. He's suing the company.

"I do not believe in my heart that I did anything wrong to be fired for," says Wyatt.

And the repercussions are echoing far beyond this town.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/07/eveningnews/main672240.shtml
 
I just checked the OK firearms carry page. There is a State law which would tell CBS to stuff it- but a FEDERAL judge has stayed implimentation.

Frankly Hollow- you voted for Kerry, and should not be surprised at any of this.

It makes no sense to me for you to be outraged. That's a fact, not a personal attack. I do however, enjoy many of your links and stories which you bring to our attention.


munk
 
To discriminate is to chose one over another - as in whom you decide to employ.

Discrimination is lawful except when motivated by a very, very few criiteria ("race" [but only some ethic groups], sex, religion, national origin, handicap --and "sexual preference" in a few jurisdictions.).

Collective bargaining agreements may, by contract, bar certain discrimination or require "good cause" for firing.

Absent a prohibited motive or a collective bargaining agreement to the contrary, an employer may fire you because you like rock music, drive a Chevy, have a gun in your trunk --- or smoke.

The Government may decide to create yet another "protected class."
 
My company has the same policy. They haven't enforced it as far as I know to the extent of searching parked cars - but they say they have the right.

There was a time where we had a shotgun range where I worked and employees carried their shotguns and ammo in their trunks so that they could shoot after work. I'm sure other irons were carried routinely also. It was not a problem.

However, most corporate executives nowadays fall on the anti-gun rights side of the fence. One former director got paranoid after 9-11 and had the rent-a-cops search cars coming in. I complained to my management that we were employees and not terrorists and all this extra "security" did nothing. It stopped a little while after. Anyway any terrorists or criminal bent on doing bodily harm could easily dispatch the unarmed security we have then go along for quite awhile with little interference.

That's what happened in the restaurant in Texas many years back. And the maniac killed many people even though the cops were next door. Many patrons who did not have CCWs at that time abided by the law and left their guns in their cars.

Evil lies in the hearts and minds of men. Guns are only one possible tool to accomplish their deeds. Outlaw evil, not guns or knives.
 
The CBS link also provides background on
Guns in America - A history of the right to bear arms, state-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.

I clicked on STATE-BY-STATE: Gun Laws And Fatalities

The number and rate of firearm related deaths in the United States have declined in the past decade. Still, 28,663 people died of gunshot wounds in 2000 and the national rate of deaths by firearms per 100,000 residents was 10.4.

<<< Click on each state to see the number of people killed from firearms, the rate of deaths and the state's laws concerning weapon possession.

Sources: National Center for Health Statistics; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Notice the source of their information, and the lack of correlation to circumstances of death (crimes, perpetrators, victims), or to changes in rates with "shall issue" laws.

* ****** **** ****** *

My experience in Postal Service management suggests to me that firing an employee for a policy that was not clearly published or explained could open the employer up to rehiring the fired employees with back pay. May it be so.
 
Here is kentucky OGA 98-12 says that the CCW laws of the state forbid employers from acting like this towards possessors of concealed carry permits yet another good reason to have one IMHO.
 
hollowdweller said:
stems from a 1986 Oklahoma post office shooting in which 14 people were killed.

I have a feeling that if more than one person brought guns to work the death toll would have been lower. Two victims max, for a max of three causalities. WOW, just think! A DOZEN lives saved!

Here's a slogon: More guns; Less victims!

Na, they'll never believe it.... :rolleyes:

1986... That almost Two DECADES ago....
 
More Guns, Less Crime. They call that 'counter intuitive'. To most of us, it is intuitive. The vast majority of people do not misuse firearms for the same reason they do not drive across the center line into on-coming traffic.




munk
 
munk said:
I just checked the OK firearms carry page. There is a State law which would tell CBS to stuff it- but a FEDERAL judge has stayed implimentation.

Frankly Hollow- you voted for Kerry, and should not be surprised at any of this.

munk

I don't get this one, Munk. Kerry didn't win. Maybe I'm just misreading, but what do you mean?

Nam

PS. this is absolutely outrageous. I have always supported gun rights. Even if I didn't, this is not fair.
 
It's a weird intersection - personal carry/defense rights versus private property rights. Should gun owners have lawful right to carry whereever, or should the property owner have a right to keep out certain objects/individuals arbitrarily? The fact that the "property owner" here is a company adds to the weirdness - I'm not an expert in the law, but I have a gut feeling that corporations were never ment to have certain rights enjoyed by individuals.

Certainly, the Weyerhauser failed the common sense test by not publicizing the policy and consequences. They failed again when they fired the employees without warning. There was no illegal activity, and no violent action, so it seems to me that the decent thing to do would be to inform these individuals that they were violating the policy and give them a chance to comply (apart from whether the policy is a good idea or not). Then again, I have worked for some bureacratic box-checkers, and some with chips on their shoulders just looking for excuses.

I tend to think that in cases like this, the vehicle should be regarded as private property - you can keep whatever you want there, and have a reasonable expectation that it will be secure. The company security guards should be able to stop people from bringing guns into the building or workplace. I would prefer that people not be able to carry in the factory, because of the danger it adds to workplace hazards (snagging a holster in a machine, misfire in a closed area, etc.). Also, the workplace should be a controlled environment safe enough that people don't have to worry about their personal safety or defending against others - i.e. the possibility of a "postal" incident.

It seems like this happened in 2002. I wonder what the status of the story is now?
 
I saw part of the piece. It wasn't even an imposing weapon. It was, as I recall, a large, heavy, relatively old hunting shotgun. Certainly not the weapon of choice for a mass murderer! And the guy seemed about as unthreatening as they come. This is terrible. I hope the company gets their a$ses sued off and the law passes.

Nam
 
I have mixed feelings too. On one hand, I see the point of the parking lot being company property. But the cars belong to the employees - it's not the same as lockers or company-owned computers.

Couldn't they have merely parked off company property?

The sudden firing without warning doesn't seem fair. But you know how memos go around the office. The sh*t-canned people probably received a memo and either didn't read it or ignored it. There's always some folks who figure rules are for everyone but them.

The over-dramatization of the college-age daughter leaving school doesn't float. If parents are retired, low income, or unemployed, there are low-no interest student loans available to anyone who wants to attend college. Might be hard to get new loans mid-semester though. But next year would be easy.

The 'new' laws protecting constitutional rights are a great idea. It doesn't seem necessary, but there are always situtations not anticipated 200+ years ago. Even so, any new laws that hurdle the big corporations' objections probably won't help anyone already fired anyway.

Even though the events happened years ago, the story has been featured within the past month on one of the network news-magazine programs. I didn't see it...

The Kerry/Bush thing doesn't seem relevent here. Bush was strong with gun rights, but he's hand in hand with the big companies who are doing the firing. And I wouldn't be suprised if the companies use the totalitarian anti-terrorism laws that Bush steamrolled through congress to assist in their cases. That guy Wyatt is lucky he didn't end up an "Enemy Combatant."

Best Wishes,
Bob
 
It's simple, Nam, and the only outragious part is people voting for anti gun candidates. There is no gun control measure Kerry did not support as a Senator- where does the outrage come from then, about rigid and dangerous gun laws, and private corporations superceding the Second Amendment?
Don't vote anti gun candidates. !!!

If we can dictate hiring practises and anti descrimination protections for private business under the Constitution, we can certainly guarentee other rights as well. Which way do you think Kerry would go on this one?

I debated whether or not I should say anything at all about this. I do apreciate the thread. I will never appreciate people complaining about disapearing gun rights on one hand, but voting the opposite.

I don't understand the outrage.

For those who think this not relevant: If Kerry had his way, there wouldn't be any guns in any cars for anyone to be fired over. If a gun was found, you'd do Federal Prison time. That's about as 'relevant' as I can imagine.

munk
 
samoand said:
Imagine the irony if someone had gone postal over this!
I know it's too late to change a phrase in such common use, but I put in a career with the US Postal Service, and I am aware as I see you are not that the Postal Service actually has a low rate of workplace violence.

As an easy target for cartoons and jokes generally, we got more publicity when there was an incident. But we also got outside industry asking to be included in Postal Service seminars on reducing violence, so they could try to achieve our level of control.

What worries most managers anywhere is the randomness of it all. You can run the happiest shop in the world, but not everyone gets along with everyone else, and the quiet guys can be the most explosive.

A few concealed firearms would go a long way toward stopping that one employee when he does explode.
 
Ok, Munk, thanks for clarifying. I didn't understand, but now I do.

This is a toughy for me, prioritizing my gun beliefs along side my other political ideas. This is certainly good food for thought.

Thanks,

Nam
 
I know it's tough, and I don't always like being a single issue voter. But things have gone too far.

Fortunately, quite often a belief in the people and not a centralized authority goes hand in hand with a belief in the Second Amendement, so choosing a pro gun politician is not always a chore.



munk
 
Back
Top