Oh I agree that public universities and colleges are just as liability averse as anyone, but what I was really getting at is that their leaders will also oppose guns even more vigorously on ideological grounds. Even if you remove the liability threat, they will still oppose guns, whereas I think most corporations, while maybe not being thrilled, will ignore the issue once the liability concerns are addressed. Hence all the woe during the Campus Carry debate about "safe learning environment" and professors alleging they would refuse to teach if any student had a legal gun and all that. Armed citizens represent a lot of things the left/liberal mindset, dominant in the "education establishment," finds abhorrent, so having guns around harshes their karma regardless of the reality of the situation.GEM-Texas wrote:Having read liability and crisis management literature aimed at universities, I would disagree respectfully as they are also truly concerned with liability.Thus I think your analysis holds for them. While on the surface the faculties are seen as not gun friendly, financial officers are more concerned with the bucks and wouldn't want to start a giant lawsuit.
....
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Parking lots and employee handbooks?”
- Mon May 30, 2011 4:44 pm
- Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: Parking lots and employee handbooks?
- Replies: 80
- Views: 33759
Re: Parking lots and employee handbooks?
- Mon May 30, 2011 2:49 pm
- Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: Parking lots and employee handbooks?
- Replies: 80
- Views: 33759
Re: Parking lots and employee handbooks?
I am feeling generous today, so I will give me three cents worth...
Penny #1: The vast majority of employers, especially large corporation types, the issue is not "safety," the issue is "financial liability." Hence the majority of big companies really don't give a flip about whether Joe has a gun in his car, they give a flip about getting sued for mega-bucks if Joe pops someone with that gun. (The exception to "don't give a flip" is probably universities and colleges.) A factor in our favor is that the legislature has specifically addressed that issue. An additional point in our favor would be if some enterprising employment law attorney began including in his advertising a willingness to represent people who think they were terminated in violation of the new law. In fact, this may put an additional arrow in the quiver of those who are fighting their terminations thru the court. Keep a cheap pistol in the trunk, if you get canned, sue for wrongful termination and claim that the employer violated the law.
Penny #2: This is an extension of the "don't give a flip about safety, only liability" thesis: employers are in the business of making money, and they don't make money if they fritter away all their funds on searches, firing otherwise able employees, and the like, unless either actual problems or litigation make these things necessary. (Again, this does not apply to public univ and colleges). Thus, I think in the majority of cases, if employers are convinced that their liability butts are covered by the law, and as long as guns in trunks don't become a real problem for the employer (thus generating negative publicity and litigation), it is rapidly going to be ignored as a non-issue. So don't be showing off your new deer rifle in the parking lot.
Penny#3: If employers are anywhere near as averse to being the "test case" in court as gun owners apparently are, then there will be no problem whatsoever.
Penny #1: The vast majority of employers, especially large corporation types, the issue is not "safety," the issue is "financial liability." Hence the majority of big companies really don't give a flip about whether Joe has a gun in his car, they give a flip about getting sued for mega-bucks if Joe pops someone with that gun. (The exception to "don't give a flip" is probably universities and colleges.) A factor in our favor is that the legislature has specifically addressed that issue. An additional point in our favor would be if some enterprising employment law attorney began including in his advertising a willingness to represent people who think they were terminated in violation of the new law. In fact, this may put an additional arrow in the quiver of those who are fighting their terminations thru the court. Keep a cheap pistol in the trunk, if you get canned, sue for wrongful termination and claim that the employer violated the law.
Penny #2: This is an extension of the "don't give a flip about safety, only liability" thesis: employers are in the business of making money, and they don't make money if they fritter away all their funds on searches, firing otherwise able employees, and the like, unless either actual problems or litigation make these things necessary. (Again, this does not apply to public univ and colleges). Thus, I think in the majority of cases, if employers are convinced that their liability butts are covered by the law, and as long as guns in trunks don't become a real problem for the employer (thus generating negative publicity and litigation), it is rapidly going to be ignored as a non-issue. So don't be showing off your new deer rifle in the parking lot.
Penny#3: If employers are anywhere near as averse to being the "test case" in court as gun owners apparently are, then there will be no problem whatsoever.