Gun Control - OSHA's covert role (Vanity)

self | 11/21/2007 | PapaBear3625

[PapaBear3625]

Gun Control - OSHA's covert role

For a long time, we've been seeing and discussing incidents where people have been fired for having firearms in their private vehicles, or carrying concealed while at work. The argument from one side has been that businesses should be able to set their own rules about their own property, and the assumption has been that the rules have been the idea of the businesses in question

In a thread yesterday, I noticed a reference to a federal judge in Oklahoma who struck down an Oklahoma law that would have permitted employees to have their guns in their vehicles in company parking lots, on the basis that the OK legislation violated federal law:

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives." [...]

Kern concluded that the proposed changes to Oklahoma law conflict with -- and are legally pre-empted by -- the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.

That federal law requires employers to lessen hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious bodily harm. The measure also encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.

Well, isn't that interesting?

Looking further, we see this from OSHA: 09/13/2006 - Request for OSHA national policy banning guns from the workplace and OSHA enforcement policy regarding workplace violence.:

While generally deferring to other federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies to regulate workplace homicides, OSHA did develop an enforcement policy with regard to workplace violence as early as 1992 in a letter of interpretation that stated:

In a workplace where the risk of violence and serious personal injury are significant enough to be "recognized hazards," the general duty clause [specified by Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)] would require the employer to take feasible steps to minimize those risks. Failure of an employer to implement feasible means of abatement of these hazards could result in the finding of an OSH Act violation.

This policy statement permits the Agency to reinforce its guidance and outreach efforts with appropriate enforcement action.

Looking further, I find this OSHA page on workplace violence with "guidance" on what employers need to do to reduce the risk of "workplace violence", with a link to "A Comprehensive Guide for Employers and Employees"

And what do we find in this comprehensive guide? We find in the Appendix a convenient template for a Appendix E - Sample Workplace Weapons Policy for all businesses to implement, which reads:

In order to ensure a safe environment for employees and customers, our establishment, [Employer Name] prohibits the wearing, transporting, storage, or presence of firearms or other dangerous weapons in our facilities or on our property. Any employee in possession of a firearm or other weapon while on our facilities/property or while otherwise fulfilling job responsibilities may face disciplinary action including termination. A client or visitor who violates this policy may be removed from the property and reported to police authorities. Possession of a valid concealed weapons permit [...] is not an exemption under this policy.

So these various companies that are prohibiting firearms in their parking lots, or CCW holders carrying on company property, are not doing this because the owners are themselves anti-gun. They are doing it because OSHA, a federal regulatory agency, is telling them they MUST have this as policy in order to be in compliance with Federal law (or else)

[nuke rocketeer]

They just will not quit will they?

2nd amendment trumps all laws.

[faloi]

Hopefully it’ll keep trumping them. I’m a bit concerned about the DC-ban review. Cautiously optimistic might be a better way to say it.

[gridlock]

Not that it matters, but it would be interesting to compare the numbers of people saved by a citizen having ready access to a weapon in his vehicle to the numbers of people killed by people who only killed because they happen to have a weapon handy out in the car.

[CitizenUSA]

“Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday...”

93 page opinion? By itself, that should send up red flags.

So workplace safety means no guns? Well, I’m certain murderous, disgruntled employees with a death wish will put compliance with OSHA rules at the top of their list (need I use a sarcasm tag?).

[budwiesest]

Well, I’m certain murderous, disgruntled employees with a death wish

I wear a flak vest when in line at the Post Office.

[TexasRedeye]

I wear a flak vest when in line at the Post Office.

Actually, I do not remove my concealed handgun when I enter a post office! It is CONCEALED! In the event I NEED it in a post office, I would much rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6!

[PapaBear3625]

As long as you remain aware that your CCW does not authorize you to carry on Federal property (like Post Offices)

Which is a good reason to buy your stamps at the supermarket service counter like I do

[TexasRedeye]

As long as you remain aware that your CCW does not authorize you to carry on Federal property (like Post Offices)...

Incomplete sentence.

Even though my CCW (Texas CHL) does not "authorize" me to carry a handgun into a Federal building of any kind, I still would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6! Concealed means CONCEALED!

[OSHA]

I deny any involvement!

[PapaBear3625]

So you deny the alligator?

[Postman]

Another POS leftist courtesy of the Clintons and a Senate full of Socialists and RINOs. Is the Oklahoma AG appealing this?

Kern, Terence C.
Born 1944 in Clinton, OK

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 9, 1994, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on June 8, 1994, and received commission on June 9, 1994. Served as chief judge, 1996-2003.

[PapaBear3625]

Also notice the OSHA letter stated "OSHA did develop an enforcement policy with regard to workplace violence as early as 1992".

Notice that year -- in the first year of the Clinton Administration, one of the first things they did was to turn OSHA into a part of their gun control strategy

[PapaBear3625]

Wait a minute, correction on that, that was the LAST year of the reign of Bush the Elder

[PapaBear3625]

ping

[spunkets]

That’s not OSHA. That’s hte MN dept of labor.

[PapaBear3625]

Read the article and follow the links in the order the article shows them. The Federal OSHA’s web page talks about the requirement to reduce exposure to guns, and then links to the MN OSHA to show the sample work policy that federal OSHA recommends

[Tijeras_Slim]

OSHA’s web page talks about the requirement to reduce exposure to guns

So now exposure is deadly? I should be dead a 1000 times over from just handling the toys in the safe.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[spunkets]

"Read the article and follow the links in the order the article shows them. The Federal OSHA’s web page talks about the requirement to reduce exposure to guns"

OK. I wouldn't don't it. OSHA is intent on forcing everyone to transform into virtual candy asses anyway. Folks are required to get training for everything now, from using a pencil, to packing cardboard boxes, so it's understandable.

[ctdonath2]

On a tangent, OSHA should be pushing for silencers being required, not virtually prohibited.

[PapaBear3625]

Also, OSHA can stay in the background on this and avoid political heat on the Administration. By making guns a "safety violation", OSHA thereby ensures that insurance companies will do their work for them.

If there's a shooting, and there was no anti-gun policy in place, then the business is in violation of OSHA safety regulations. Being in violation would undercut their defense against any lawsuit, so of course any plaintiff's lawyer would ensure that a complaint was filed with OSHA. The insurance companies, to protect their position in such a scenario, would mandate a "no guns" policy as a condition of getting insurance

[Eagle Eye]

They are doing it because OSHA, a federal regulatory agency, is telling them they MUST have this as policy in order to be in compliance with Federal law (or else)

Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

The Looking further, I find this OSHA page on workplace violence with "guidance" on what employers need to do to reduce the risk of "workplace violence", with a link to "A Comprehensive Guide for Employers and Employees"

That portion is guidance only and does not have the force of law as you state.

And what do we find in this comprehensive guide? We find in the Appendix a convenient template for a Appendix E - Sample Workplace Weapons Policy for all businesses to implement, which reads:

Both those links are to a Minnesota state program, not an OSHA program as you stated.

IMO, OSHA isn't concerned about gun control but about effective public policy within their charter to reduce or eliminate workplace injuries.

You won't find many more staunch 2A supporters than I, since I even advocate felons being able to legally own guns.

But what we advocate as personal liberties don't always translate to good public policies.

If you own a factory with 1000 employees, how do you handle 2A rights vs your responsibilities and liabilities as the employer? Do you make policy that your employees resist robbers or that they comply with them?

Do you allow concealed carry on the factory floor or open carry? Do you have any guidelines, ie limits?

See, it is one thing for you to want your freedoms but something else when you have to have policy for 1000 people who may want to sue you!

So in the interest of truth and honesty, your post isn't truthful or honest.

[Eagle Eye]

Insurance companies do not need OSHA standards at all, they can write their own underwriting rules.

If there's a shooting, and there was no anti-gun policy in place, then the business is in violation of OSHA safety regulations.

Hey Dum Bass....according to section 5A any workplace injury is proof of violation

(a) Each employer --
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

So your whole case is really falling down the tubes, isn't it?

[Eagle Eye]

OHSA only regulates workplace safety, not recreational or other safety.

And there’s not many workplaces where silencers would be a safety measure, are there?