Gun Ownership: Moral & Legal Rights
The Weyerhaeuser Company's response to employees carrying guns on company's parking lot (and for that matter NRA's rebuttal) (TEXTBOOK) represents a recurring example of ongoing debate on which rights should have more weight in carrying guns at workplace. That is, if employers have a right, being business owners, to control guns (and, for that matter, any non-corporate possessions) on company's premises, including parking lots, employees also have constitutional rights to carry guns. The debate is, indeed, complicated and one anticipates changing attitudes over extended periods can only make approaches to gun control – and ownership – more accommodating.
This moral right can be, partly, explained by a broader cultural pattern particular to U.S. The growing viewership habits in recent years have increasingly emphasized more violent content (Holbert, Shah & Kwak, 2004). This pattern has, indeed, shown to increase likelihood of gun ownership (Holbert, Shah & Kwak). Thus, by embedding a deeper propensity, gun ownership becomes justified by rationales of law enforcement and self protection.
Employee vs. Employer: Rights and Concerns
The safety concern is one major justification of employers to limit gun ownership in parking lots, let alone office space, as emphasized repeatedly in current case (TEXTBOOK). Given how volatile situations can be, employers assume a precautionary position by emphasizing workplace safety over personal rights. This position is, in fact, supported by American Bar Association (ABA) based on a property rights argument (TEXTBOOK). That is, in seeking a ban on gun ownership at workplace, ABA is defending an employer's position from a perspective of property ownership, just as for personal properties.
This justification has not, however, been adopted by an increasing number of states, supported by strong gun ownership lobbies including, most notably, National Rifle Association (NRA). In recent months alone, 22 states have passed laws which restrict an employer's ban of gun ownership in vehicles in parking lots (Murray, 2013). In response, an increasing number of states has reviewed in-place HR policies in order to adapt for new legislative realities (Murray). By orienting manager on propensities for violent behavior, particularly during volatile situations, companies are responding, albeit unwillingly, to new gun ownership permissions (Murray).
The recent legislative developments emphasize, if anything, a broader concern by U.S. society about personal safety (as opposed to workplace safety). That is, if employers are most concerned about workplace safety for, primarily, business reasons, employees are under increasing social and psychological pressure to own guns for personal reasons. The personal (as opposed to workplace) approach to safety is echoed by Jeffrey Pasek, a specialist in labor and employment law at Cozen O'Connor in Philadelphia (Murray). Pasek's main argument is based on a premise of likelihood of violence anywhere. That is, if companies defend corporate premises as own turf based on safety concerns, volatile situations, including termination meetings, can be in places such as airports (Murray). Accordingly, companies cannot have full control over a developing situation outside premises, let alone gun ownership. Put differently, companies can defend a corporate perspective against gun ownership in a company's parking lot but cannot, following same line of reasoning, defend her position in a situation involving company staff in a venue rented out or owned by company outside corporate premises. Thus, employers are at both a moral and legal dilemma by defending a strict policy in one context and being unable to uphold corporate policies in another. The case for corporate premise is further complicated for companies operating in different states. Indeed, if a company sticks to a strict policy in a state not committing companies to limit bans on gun control in parking lots and permits staff to carry guns in states committing companies to gun ownership permissions, such companies could possibly face law suits by gun ownership advocate staff who, as legal arguments would say, are not only denied a right guaranteed by constitution but are also been handled in unfair manner compared to co-workers.
Given current state of affairs, a number of states has passed laws in favor of gun ownership advocates at workplace. This intervention has, indeed, granted more legal protections for employees at workplace. Meanwhile, companies are now under increasing pressure to re-gear in-place labor policies to new realities. If anything, multiple, if not patchwork, legislations in numerous states have not only generated more confusion for an issue still widely unsettled but also, more significantly, have established precedents challenging of which would be more consuming. That is, by passing legislations in each state based on each state's state of affairs, interstate legal implications (as argued above) might lead to further appellation (by employer or employee), only to polarize positions and would not, unfortunately, resolve gun control at workplace.
Moreover, by passing legislations at state level, in light of any clear federal propositions, unfavorable legal developments could emerge. In a similar fashion to medical marijuana legislation, opting for a state-by-state gun control legislation, in absence of a broad federal intervention, is more likely to echo deep across multiple business functions in addition to labor policies. For example, by passing laws at state level, "corporate bottlenecks" can develop. That is, given how "political" gun control is viewed (TEXTBOOK), a state-only legislation is apt to align biases at workplace, biases based not on differences over work practices but, notably, on political affiliations. True, an assumption of political divisions at workplace based on policy change in one area (when ethnic relations at workplace have, for example, been a historical polarizing factor at workplace) might be overstated, a counterargument might so go. However, underlying gun control at workplace is a broad range of corporate policies, including crisis management policies. In volatile, work contexts, situations spiraling out of control would not only be informed by gun control policies but, more significantly, by unanswered questions about workplace violence. Thus, state legislation alone is not enough. Indeed, federal legislation (only possible by unprecedented steps, including a possible constitutional re-amendment).
Firearms at Workplace: Property Right Considerations
As noted, safety reigns supreme as primary justification for companies to restrict, if not ban, gun ownership at workplace. This corporate persistence on safety is, in fact, supported by a growing body of literature showing gun ownership at workplace raises likelihood of homicide (Loomis, Marshall & Ta, 2005). From a private property perspective, companies have legal rights to ban gun ownership. This ban, when weighed against individual rights (long established by Constitution), becomes restrictive, if not illegal. Moreover, given changing nature of work, let alone workplace setting, placing a ban on gun ownership by companies needs an extensive review of what constitutes "personal" at workplace. For example, if one's office can be defined as "personal" space, why should not a gun in a vehicle owned by an employee in a parking lot (outside workplace) be personal? Moreover, if corporate policies vary across different business contexts over gun ownership, why should one policy be adopted over another? The case for gun ownership is, after all, one of corporate culture, as far as no federal law is not in place.
References
Holbert, R. L., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2004). Fear, Authority, and Justice: Crime-Related TV Viewing and Endorsements of Capital Punishment and Gun Ownership. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 343-363. Sage Journals. doi: 10.1177/107769900408100208
Loomis, D., Marshall, S. W., & Ta, M. L. (2005). Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace. American Journal of Public Health, 95(5), 830-832. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.033535
Murray, S. (2013, October 15). Guns in the Parking Lot: A Delicate Workplace Issue. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/
Tobin, J. S. (2015, December 21). The Second Amendment Blocks Gun Control Efforts. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
TEXTBOOK
