So, what has to happen is to make firing the employee more financially painful than not firing him.
Financially, probably nothing unless people really boycott.
Ethically? That’s another story. And that’s always a 1-way road when it comes to the HR department in companies.
Drivers have to file suit saying that PH is knowingly putting them in an unsafe work environment and then not protecting them and not allowing them to protect themselves within the law.
I do understand the employer’s point of view to some extent, the rationale that if robbers think all employees are armed, they may be quicker to shoot first in the commission of their crime.
However, when a company, especially one where its employees, apparently, are regularly robbed and even killed, has a no gun policy, it is also easy to argue that they are inviting more armed robberies.
Seems to me that a company would be in a better position to not have any policy on gun possession. The company can still prohibit wrongful conduct on the part of its employees (such as wrongfully threatening someone, etc.).