PDA

View Full Version : Companies Firing Gunowners


DaMadman
08-11-2005, 03:26 PM
I know all or most of you have heard about this already. I was just wondering is everyone (anyone) actually sent in the postcards that the NRA sent out, to the corporations ( Weyerhaeuser, AOL, CONOCOPHILLIPS and the other one I can't remember right this second).

I sent mine in the mail this morning and took my fight one step further and went to the corporations website and sent them an Email.

Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of the Email I sent but I think I worded it rather well and expressed my concerns in a proffesional manner. I just wanted to share the BS email that I got back from Weyerhaeuser Corporation. I wanted to share it in case anyone else wanted to email them and see if this is a standard form email that they are sending back to everyone that emails them on the subject of firing employees for keeping guns legally locked in their vehicles.

Here is the response I got

Thank you for contacting us regarding our policy on guns in our
workplace. In responding to your comments, let me begin by correcting
four common misperceptions about our policy and its implementation.

* First, our policy is about the SAFETY of our employees, not guns
or the second amendment. We understand and support the individual right
and responsibility to own firearms and use them safely. The National
Rifle Association has been a leader in promoting firearm safety and we
commend the NRA for its leadership. Unfortunately, not every gun owner
is an NRA member or supports the responsible use of firearms.
* Second, we did NOT conduct the search of our parking lot during
gun hunting season. The only legal form of hunting in Oklahoma at the
time of the search (October 1) was archery (bows and arrows).
* Third, employees WERE alerted and informed numerous times of the
new policy, as were the managers of contractor workforces at the mill.
This process included individual meetings, team meetings, e-mail
notification to every employee and a company-wide bulletin. In addition,
all workers and visitors must pass a "no weapons" sign posted along the
main access road to the Valliant mill.
* Fourth, we are NOT party to any litigation in Oklahoma seeking
to prevent implementation of state laws. Out of concern for the safety
of our employees, we voiced our apprehension about the measure while it
was under review by the Oklahoma Legislature. After the governor signed
the bill, we did not take any action to prevent its implementation.

As we stated in a letter to Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president
and chief executive officer, some of our managers have had the
unfortunate task of telling a family that a loved one was not coming
home due to workplace violence involving firearms. According to the U.S.
Department of Labor, homicides are the leading cause of death for women
in the workplace and the second leading cause of death for men. Reducing
that risk is the responsible thing to do and studies indicate that
companies with gun policies such as ours are one-third less likely to
experience workplace violence than those without a policy.

We are not saying that firearms are the cause of workplace violence. But
we live in an era when we ask the majority to endure certain
inconveniences to increase the safety and security of all, such as when
we submit to security screening at airports. As a society, we recognize
that small accommodations are necessary to ensure our individual safety
as well as those around us. Leaving one's firearm at home for trips to
and from the workplace may seem like an inconvenience as well, but we
believe it is necessary to ensure the safety of our workers. The vast
majority of Weyerhaeuser employees understand the importance of safely
handling firearms. But it only takes one irresponsible employee to
change the lives of many in a matter of seconds.

Preventing workplace violence is important to public acceptance of gun
ownership. That's why we wrote to ask the NRA to work with us on this
important issue rather than fostering a debate over the wrong concerns.
The real issue here is the safety of our employees, not firearms.

Best regards,

Weyerhaeuser Company

DaMadman
08-11-2005, 03:42 PM
Subject: In the interest of public relations
Comments: It was recently brought to my attention through the
media that your company is one of the corporations that is involved in
firing long time employees for legally storing firearms in their
vehicles in a parking lot owned by your company while they are at work for you.

As a member of the NRA and more importantly a citizen of the United Stated Of America, I feel that this is an attack on every law abiding citizens' 2nd Amendment Right.

I would like to express my concern that this is an act that I find most disturbing. Not only are you infringing on 2nd Amendment rights but it appears that the firearms in question were found in an illegal search of private property (the employees vehicle).

I am simply E-mailing you to ask that management of your corporation please reconsider your stance on this issue. I will do my best to stay aware of any further developments but until then, I will also do everything in my power to avoid supporting your company and any of the products it produces and I will also inform anyone and everyone that I can get to listen about your company's practices against our Constitutional Right To Keep and Bear Arms, and reference them to the articles that I have read.

If your company really is interested in "public relations" I would like to suggest that you rethink your stance on firing good loyal law abiding employees for believing that they are protected by the Constitution Of These United States.

Thank You for Your Time

denton
08-11-2005, 04:02 PM
The company is oblivious to reality:

I suppose the policy made some bliss-ninny at the top feel better.

DaMadman
08-11-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by denton
The company is oblivious to reality:

I suppose the policy made some bliss-ninny at the top feel better.

yeah well I wrote a reply to their explanation but I haven't sent it yet. I know it is just a waste of time to send it but I might "reply to their reply tomorrow"

This is what I have so far.................


As I said before I know I am only one voice. I also know that I am probably wasting my time writing this email and after this reply will not write back anymore. However I will make sure that I do not do anything to support your company in anyway that I can possibly avoid.

However in response to your rebuttal of my original Email I feel a certain responsibility to in turn reply to your "explanations."

First you say that your policy is about safety not guns.
To this I say how unsafe is a unloaded gun locked inside of a vehicle in a parking lot. I cannot think of one incident where a person that was planning wrong doing would leave their unloaded firearm locked in a vehicle in a parking lot. Also it is not just about safety it is about a law abiding citizens' right to transport a firearms in their vehicle, so that they may enjoy the activities that go along with that right.

Second I do not understand what difference it make what time of year you searched the parking lot #1 it is still an illegal search and against a persons rights to search their private property. Even police have to have probable cause and a warrant to search a persons car. It appears that your company carried out the search without a warrant and without the persons permission. #2 There are many, many more legitimate reasons people have for legally transporting a firearm in their vehicle, shooting competitions and target practice before or after work, many people have a permit to LEGALLY carry for personal protection, issued by the state and many other reasons which are too numerous to list. So why does it matter if the illegal search was during firearms hunting season?

Third Just because you say that the employees were told of the NEW policies does not make them right, just, or in any way fair to a law abiding citizen. The Constitution and the State of Oklahoma (and many other states) say that citizens are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and are allowed to legally transport them in a vehicle and you think it is your corporate duty to strip these rights away from them just because you say so and put a new policy into affect?
Is it fair that a person that started working for your company many years before you put this "policy" into affect and has many vested years working for you be subjected to choosing between losing his Constitutional Rights or giving up his retirement just because your company says so?

Fourth I am certainly glad to hear that you are not part of the litigation but that does not excuse the fact that you are making law abiding citizens that should have the right to "keep and bear arms" choose between their Constitutional Rights and the rights the state gives them to carry a firearm legally in their vehicle and their employment at your company.

Like I said I certainly hope your company will reconsider their stance on this issue in any future "policies" you put into affect that limit your employees rights under our Constitution.

Once again Thank You for your time.

Skinny Shooter
08-12-2005, 12:13 PM
I respect any company's right to set policy on what is allowed on their property by any person in their employ, but...

When an employee disregards the "no weapons" policy and starts shooting co-workers, who will be there to stop him/her?

Surely not the company CEO.
Or the police. 10 rounds could be dumped into me before I finished punching in 911 on the phone...

Or who keeps that employee safe when traveling to/from work during the night hours on back-country deserted roads, etc...

Hopefully there will be a compromise.

At our county courthouse, citizens are provided with a free locker for their firearm when CCW. You have to show security your CCW ID BEFORE passing thru the detectors, a receipt is signed for the gun and the owner places it under lock and key. Pretty simple.

denton
08-12-2005, 01:01 PM
If you could bear a little help drafting your reply, please consider the following, along with skinny's excellent comment:

By exactly what mechanism does restricting guns in workers' cars improve worker safety? Do you mean that some mentally unbalanced person, bent on mayhem, and disregarding state, local and federal laws that carry prison time, will be stopped cold in his tracks by some company policy that might cause him to lose his job? Is there any actual evidence that this might work? If there is no evidence, then on what basis are you implementing this policy?

Somewhere in a company as large as yours, there are people who have good reason to fear violence from no-good former husbands or boyfriends, or people they have helped send to prison. Some of them legally carry a gun for self-defense, with good reason. If they are attacked on company property, and are unable to defend themselves because they complied with your policy, are you willing to take full and complete responsibility for the death and injuries that follow? Are you willing to pay the medical bills, and, if necessary, continue to support the family left without income because of compliance with your policy? Are you going to hire a substitute mother or father? Are you willing to "make whole" employees who suffer as a result of your policy?

What in the world makes you think that all the mentally unstable people in the area work for you? Suppose an enviro-wacko, or fired former employee forces his way onto company property, and starts shooting people. What is the average time required for the police to arrive in force? How many shots can a nut case fire in that amount of time? What is your response plan, until the police arrive? Are your guards armed, and willing to protect your employees?

If your guards are armed, what makes you think they are more dependable than your other employees? If your guards are not armed, how do you intend to protect your employees, after having taken away their means of self-defense? For that matter, what makes you think the police are more dependable than your employees?

You are probably considerably more safe conducting employee seminars in firearm safety, and the legal issues involved in self defense and deadly force, and hanging out a sign that says "We don't dial 911".

Blktail
08-13-2005, 01:08 AM
A company or individual has and should have the right to limit the presence of firearms on their property. Employees can choose to park elsewhere.
I would hazard a guess that most of the people who dream of stopping a lunatic with the gun in their trunk need a fresh pair of shorts when the opportunity arises.

carl
08-13-2005, 03:57 PM
I believe it wouldn't matter what the company policy is. If someone wants sneak a gun or some kind of bomb etc. in they don't care about policies,laws or any restrictions.You only restrict law abidding hunters,target shooters and Concealed carry permit holders from locking their guns in their vehicles.I believe I read on Packing . org that Kentucky passed a law that you can't restrict a licenced Concealed carry permit holder from locking his gun up in a public or private parking area.Why shouldn't honest law abidding people not be trusted?.

indianahick
08-14-2005, 04:35 PM
There are companies out there that not only have a no firearms allowed on their property and will fire you for haveing one but will even carry it one step farther and fire you for archery equipment. Especially hunting bows with broadhead equipped arrows. They have written their policies to say weapons. All inclusive.

8X56MS
08-14-2005, 05:37 PM
Bottom line is, as always, Big Business is covering it's butt. That statement is not a value judgment, but a fact of life.
If you really are PO'd about all this, go beat up a lawyer. The ability of lawyers to chase an ambulance or find a juicy law suit is almost unbelievable. They have a nose for possible litigation that would put a bird dog to shame.
lately, its coming out that in many of the class actions suits, the lawyers themselves, in cahoots with doctors, are fabricating the basic building blocks of their suit out of lies, fraud, conspiracy.