Safety in the workplace

As I was patronizing a franchise of one of the purest examples of capitalism this morning, I noticed today's USA Today newspaper in a vending machine out front. On the front page was a segment about how employers are not doing enough to protect their employees from workplace violence. I looked it up on their website and found it.

In nearly eight of 10 cases, killers left behind clear warning signs — sometimes showing guns to co-workers, threatening their bosses or talking about attacking. But in the majority of cases, employers ignored, downplayed or misjudged the threat, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 224 instances of fatal workplace violence.

Less than 20% of the companies targeted in such attacks beefed up security or took other internal prevention steps. It is not known how many called police before the attacks took place.

The analysis found that many companies fail to identify risks or teach managers how to defuse the tensions that can precipitate an attack. They frequently fail to react when workers say that they're scared. And they often fail to take extra precautions to enhance security, even after an event such as a firing or disciplinary hearing that could trigger an attack. One company, Honeywell, hired back an employee who served four years in prison for fatally strangling a co-worker; then he killed again.

A bit later, it says:

Some employers, however, say they've done everything to prevent violence and that there is no way to know when a disgruntled employee will kill. Mental health experts have been known to determine an employee is no threat, only to have the worker turn deadly. Workplace experts and federal agencies do provide threat assessments to help determine when employees may become dangerous.

Some experts also say companies are doing a lot to prevent attacks but that more can be done to make workplaces respectful places where employees are treated fairly.

Now I'm all for "making workplaces respectful places where employees are treated fairly." It's simply the right thing to do, not to mention beneficial for business. However, there will always be times when these efforts fail and there will always be people who are troubled for some reason and have the potential to turn violent. You are not going to be able to identify them all nor will you be able to help all those you do identify.

Beefing up security can help, but it won't prevent all cases. Right now, if I wanted to, I could get a gun, bring it to work, and shoot a bunch of people. There has been no indication in my behavior that I might do this, and there's no mechanism and/or procedure in place to prevent me from doing so. Of course I will do no such thing because I'm (relatively) sane and not prone to violence. I'm happy in my job and like the people I work with. I'm a law-abiding citizen who does own guns, who does have a concealed pistol license, and who has no intention whatsoever of committing a crime.

There is one thing that companies can do to make their workplaces safer. This is to allow their employees to be armed if they want. My company has a policy that no firearms are allowed on or in any property that they control. This includes the parking lots so I'm not allowed even to store a pistol safely in my vehicle while I'm at work. It's their right to have this policy and I do not violate it but the truth is that I'm less safe than I would be if I were armed.

Let's take a look at the practical result of such a policy. As I see it, there are two reasons why I would bring a firearm to work:

1. I want to be able to defend myself should I be assaulted by someone with a gun or other deadly weapon. In this case, nobody is harmed other than a potential attacker. My pistol would be concealed so nobody would even know I had it. In the event a disgruntled coworker comes in and starts to shoot up the place, I am in a good position to put a stop to it and save lives.


2. I intend to assault my coworkers with it. In this case, people will definitely get hurt and/or killed

Now let's introduce the no firearms policy to each case:

1. This case actually breaks down into two subcases:
   
   
   
   1. Being a loyal employee and a law-abiding citizen I obey the policy and do not come to work armed. In the event of a disgruntled coworker coming in and shooting up the place, I am forced to rely on whatever weapons I can improvise (i.e. throwing a chair, stabbing him with a pen if I can get close enough, etc.) or on my ability to run and hide. I am in a poor position to put a stop to it and save lives, including my own.
   
   
   2. I ignore the policy and come to work armed. My pistol is concealed but a small chance exists that it will be discovered. In the event a disgruntled employee attacks, I am well-positioned to defend myself and others. Should it be discovered, I will likely be fired and possibly even arrested (not sure on this since it's corporate policy, not law; I may be charged with trespassing or nothing at all).
   
   
   
   



2. Since I am determined to commit this crime, the policy does not act as a deterrent at all and people are still hurt and/or killed.

So, from this we see that the only possible effect on safety that this policy provides is a negative one. There is no positive. Some would say that the policy provides for a safer environment since my gun could go off accidentally. I would say the odds of that are less than the odds that an employee will attack me or others. It's not like I'm going to pull it out and start fiddling with it during meetings. Nevertheless, one possible way to mitigate even that possibility is for the employer to allow only employees that provide some sort of certification of proficiency (such as from a training course) to be armed at work.

For now, the policy is in effect, and I obey it. However, certain people have instructions to contact legal professionals should I be injured or killed by an attacker in the workplace. More on this I will not say but I'm sure you can figure it out from there.