Your question on June 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM:
I was wondering what the reasoning was for restricting the legal right to carry a concealed firearm by CHL holders is. I would think that with the knowledge of these people having gone through training, FBI background checks, and certification processes that they would be trusted.
On 06/02/2009 at 12:11 PM - Name removed
left the message:
Greetings valued employee,
Thanks for using EmployeeVoice to submit your concern in care of carrying a concealed firearm on Company name
When considering Company name
's commitment to ensuring all employees are operating in a work environment that is safe and non-threatening to others, such policies as the Violence-Free Workplace Policy outlines Company name
commitment. It's not to say Company name
does not trust employees who have proven themselves responsible and trustworthy by CHL standards, yet, it is the fear and perception that one develops when they see someone (outside of law enforcement) with a weapon - that can be very frightening to the average person, and ccould create a working environment that is threatening and hostile. Think about from this angle - what if you and me got into an argument and I had a concealed weapon on me (and you knew I did), how would you feel? Maybe a bit threatening and put off not knowing what I might do, if pushed to the limits... This is only one example of how allowing employees to bear arms on Company name
property could create a hostile and intimidating working environment.
I hope this helps to clarify Company name
rationale for not permitting firearms on Company name
On 06/03/2009 at 11:20 AM - You left the message:
Thank you for your response, I do see your point but and understand how the "masses" can feel towards ignorance of any subject not just those of personal responsibility with weapons.
I simply believe that this policy pointing out firearms and knives (other than those used for work related functions) is baseless considering the fact that in an office environment there are just as many dangerous objects around that can be just as easily employed to cause harm to another.
The example given of "us arguing and me knowing you are armed" doesn't fit the bill either as it implys those who choose to take personal responsibility for their own safety are also somehow unstable enough to use proper judgment in conflict resolution.
Thanks again for your time and prompt response.