Following the guidelines of the course ID guidelinesStudent’s NameUniversity
1. What questions should her SPHR friend ask Betty Smith?
In the beginning, the SPHR friend will ask Betty to calm down and ask her the problems that are faced by the organization. The SPHR friend will ask Betty to explain the situations that are described by the CEO. The SPHR friend will then ask Betty about her knowledge of the Second Amendment Law and what she knows about workplace violence. It is important for an HR executive to understand the problems faced by the organization regards to its workplace and understand the concerned issues of workplace violence. Along with that, the HR representative must be aware of the facts and laws that govern the use of guns in the workplace. The SPHR will ask Betty, did she know about the free use of guns allowed in the Indiana and 12 other states. Hence, it becomes difficult for an HR to ask an employee not to bring guns to the workplace. The SPHR will further ask her to go through some laws regulating workplace violence. Hence, the major questions that SPHR friend will ask are to demonstrate the problems of the organization and the rules that are known by Betty.
2. Do you think it is a good idea for a CEO to bring a gun to work? Justify your response. Consider the second amendment.
The Amendment II in the United States Constitution states that the people have the right to bear and keep arms, and it was adopted in the year 1791 in the Bill of Rights. According to the law, the people of USA can keep arms with them for their personal safety (Bellesiles & Cottrol, 1997). The Supreme Court ruled the law in the favor of individuals. The law does not provide the people with the free use of arms in any case and also does not forbid the all other regulations of firearms and similar weapons. Indiana and 12 other states in America have signed into the law of keeping arms for the personal safety. According to the legislation of the region, the CEO of the XYZ Company is allowed to bring guns in the workplace.
If we look at the laws regulating the Workplace safety in other regions, it can be seen that any official of the organization is not allowed to bear or keep arms without the permission and proper license to use the arms. Weapons can be used by security guards who have the responsibility for the safety of the employees of an organization. Hence, according to the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the CEO or any of the high-level officials are not allowed to bear or keep arms in the workplace. If the CEO does not carry a gun into the workplace, he can act as a role model for his employees. In other words, a person can prohibit others people from not doing something weird, only when he follows the right path. It is important for the CEO to employ security guards for his safety and safety of the employees that could prohibit the use of arms by the employees in the workplace.
3. Should there be covert “armed employees” at each organization that are carefully selected (after a thorough background check) by the HR managers? Explain why or why not.
It is important for any organization to provide the employees with safety measures. It can be seen that the workplace violence has tremendously increased in past years. Hence, it is important for the HR manager to restrict employees from carrying arms in the workplace. A working environment without any armed employees can be more vulnerable to life risks (Crofford, 2007). Hence, it is important for the HR managers to keep covert or secret armed employees to maintain the organization safety. It helps to keep a no-arm policy in the organization as well as provide the employees with the safety of life.
It is important to select an armed employee by taking careful measures. A thorough background check must be conducted by the HR managers to identify the reality of the information provided by the applicants. The criminal records of the applicants must be checked and considered before employing him in the role of a private armed employee in the organization. A thorough background check is necessary for the safety of other employees of the organization. Hence, it can be seen that an organization needs to employ covert armed employees after a careful selection procedure performed by the HR managers.
4. What are some issues with the traditional way of having an unarmed security guard sitting at the front desk?
Security guards are contracted employees hired for protecting the assets, property and people of the organization. Traditionally, their role was to maintain a high visibility presence for protecting the property of the organization (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). Their job was to prevent inappropriate and illegal actions by observing through monitoring alarms, video cameras or direct patrols. After identification of fire, crime or crisis, they report to the higher authority, and necessary actions were taken. Hence, it can be seen that unarmed security guards are almost useless in providing life security of the employees from any assault in the workplace.
The biggest issue with the traditional way of having an unarmed security guard is the boredom. It is a dull job to sit at the front desk and stare at the video monitors. It makes the security guard mentally freeze out and makes them count the hours until the time comes to go home. Hence, it can be seen that the primary attention of the unarmed security guards is at checking out of the daily job. Providing a proper security comes last in their mind. Hence, it can be seen that the traditional way of keeping an unarmed security guard sitting at the front desk is just wastage of time and money of the organization.
5. What rules and regulations must be taken into consideration when making the decision? Interesting enough, Indiana is one of 13 states that signed into law a measure that bans employers from telling workers that they can’t have guns in their cars. Should all states consider such laws? Justify your response.
It is important for the HR managers to understand the laws of employment before taking decisions of laying out an employee. It can be seen that an organization cannot terminate an employee because he or she keeps or carry a gun with them. The organization can terminate the employees for holding a gun only when the state law permits it (Schat & Kelloway, 2003). The organization can terminate employees who play the roles of a traditional security guard sitting at the front desk. To maintain workplace harmony, there is a need to restrict people from bringing guns into the workplace.
When it comes to the support of laws that permits people for carrying guns at the workplace, it can be seen that bringing guns to workplace increases the chances of workplace violence. Hence, to have a peaceful workplace environment, it is necessary for the states not to support the laws that allow common people to keep and bear guns at the workplace. There must be a law that restricts employees from keeping and bearing firearms. Identifying significant organizational ethical consideration, the employees as well as the employers must be convinced about their safety within the workplace. Therefore, rich corporate culture and workplace environment must be created to understand their ethical responsibility. In this way, organizations can restrict their employees and the employers to carry guns in the workplace. Identifying such workplace ethics and responsibility from the organizations can lead the state government to make such laws that can deliver regulations against carrying guns in the workplace. The step by step formation can result in build laws in favor of not carrying firearms within the office premises.
References
Bellesiles, M., & Cottrol, R. (1997). Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment. Law And History Review, 15(1), 203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/827730
Crofford, L. (2007). Violence, Stress, and Somatic Syndromes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 299-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838007303196
LeBlanc, M., & Kelloway, E. (2002). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 29-49. Retrieved from http://Google Scholar
Schat, A., & Kelloway, E. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(2), 110-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.2.110
