Workplace safety: Shooting blanks

Posted: March 24, 2007 - 10:30pm

GEORGIA BUSINESSES need wide latitude when it comes to establishing workplace rules that keep employees and customers safe.

It's a matter of creating a productive environment, a positive atmosphere and expected standards of behavior.

Besides, if something happens and someone is hurt or killed on a company's property, it's not going to be the victim who gets blamed or sued. It's going to be the employer.

Unfortunately, some Georgia lawmakers want to intrude on the private sector and tell businesses what they can and cannot do when it comes to firearms on company property.

This week, the state Senate is expected to vote on a measure (SB 43) that would strip businesses of their ability to prohibit employees from bringing guns to work and keeping them in locked vehicles in parking lots.

This bill isn't about the right of a law-abiding citizen to own firearms, which we support. It's about whether Big Government can limit employers who need to maintain a safe work environment and avoid potentially costly liability.

The answer is a resounding "no."

Supporters of the bill, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 7-3 vote, argue that employees of any business should be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights by taking their firearms to work, as long as they keep them in locked vehicles. They also contend that it's a matter of self-defense

Georgia and the rest of the states already allow gun owners to transport guns for lawful purposes. Many Georgians carry firearms in vehicles for personal protection. And that's fine. But if a private business decides that it doesn't want firearms on its property, it should be allowed to make that decision.

Employees have reasonable expectations when they go to work. So do customers who frequent a business. One of those expectations is that they won't be victims of violence.

There's no guarantee, of course.

Earlier this month in Signal Hill, Calif., a disgruntled employee whose hours were reduced shot and seriously wounded three colleagues at a print shop before committing suicide. In January, a man in Indianapolis shot and wounded four co-workers at a factory that employs disabled people, saying he did it "over respect."

In 2004, a disgruntled worker at a meat-packing plant in Kansas City killed four fellow employees and wounded three others. In 2003, an employee at a Lockheed Martin aircraft-parts plant in Meridian, Miss., shot 14 co-workers and left six people dead.

Then, infamously, there are the employee-related shootings at U.S. Postal Service facilities, including one in 1991 when a fired employee in Royal Oak, Mich., killed four supervisors. These incidents coined the phrase "going postal."

The National Rifle Association contends the safety issue is overblown, citing a Bureau of Justice Statistics report that shows 84 percent of all workplace murders are committed by strangers, while only 7 percent are committed by current or former employees. The group also argues that any employee who's determined to commit a violent crime will not be prevented by a company policy against having guns in the car.

But the same can be said about any rule or law. If someone is determined to drive 100 mph, rob a convenience store, sell crack on a street corner or point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, no restriction will stop that individual. Yet it's in society's best interest to set expected standards for behavior. And it takes only one dead employee - not 7 percent of the total number killed - to bring down the wrath of lawyers and workplace safety inspectors.

SB 43 includes a provision that offers immunity to employers who get sued because of an employee shooting on company property. But shouldn't employers be allowed to prohibit guns on company property, simply for the sake of reducing the potential for violence?

People have the right to bear arms. But that right doesn't trump the private property rights of employers. Big Government should stick its big nose somewhere else.


Comments (1) Add comment
slight9 03/29/07 - 08:30 am
Wokplace Safety?

The editorial, Workplace safety: Shooting blanks, on Sunday, March 25th about usurping property rights for protection rights has some interesting points. However the story is vastly mistaken on its conclusion. The workplace shootings were not committed by anyone that was legally licensed to carry in the workplace. The author does not differentiate licensed carriers of concealed weapons and unlicensed ones breaking the law. Furthermore, the violence might have been avoided or reduced if someone had been carrying a concealed weapon. The concealed carry laws, or the right to personal protection, are there for this reason, to protect yourself and others from criminals who commit these violent acts.

I am all for personal property rights, but the government has said on numerous occasions that property rights are secondary to other rights. (see: Eminent Domain, smoking bans, EEO, etc.) I believe that personal protection is one of these rights.

Back to Top

Recent comments

BiS Local Business Directory

Connect with