TERRE HAUTE — Many employers nationwide have taken a no-tolerance stance in recent years when it comes to employees bringing weapons to work.
In the aftermath of workplace shootings by disgruntled co-workers or former employees, many companies set policies that forbid firearms or other weapons from being transported onto company property.
Many Wabash Valley employers enacted that same type of policy, intended to lessen the chance of workplace violence and to promote safe environments for employees and customers.
But an Indiana law enacted last year has challenged those employer policies, and has left some companies grappling with a constitutional dilemma.
The Bill of Rights grants citizens both the right to have weapons as well as property rights. Ken Baker, vice president of human resources at AET, a plastic film manufacturer, said that employers as property owners have the right to say what items their employees can or cannot bring onto the employers’ property.
Prior to enactment of the state law last year, AET had a no gun policy that was posted at the entrance to the property. Baker said he expressed his concern about the law change with local legislators last year, but was told the law would give employees greater protection by allowing them to keep their firearms inside their locked cars.
“I can’t buy the idea that we, as an employer, can’t resolve it,” Baker said of any potential issue inside the AET facility that could become a violent situation. “If an employee runs out to their car to get a gun, and then steps out of the car, they will likely be terminated.”
Baker said he is concerned about how far lawmakers will go to make sure people can take weapons to work. And current legislation in both the Indiana Senate and House seems to favor gun owners over employer rights.
“I don’t see any restraint on that zeal,” he said.
And he said that in the case of workplace violence where an employee runs out to their vehicle, the employee would certainly not be expected to retrieve a firearm and go back inside a building to “save the day” or stop a shooter. That would be akin to expecting vigilante justice to be carried out by a person who is not a law enforcement officer.
Baker told the Tribune-Star that he is not opposed to people owning guns. He himself grew up hunting game and he still owns guns. But people have a right in their own homes and property to ban guns, he said, and employers should have the right on their own property to set the rules on whether weapons are allowed or not.
On the law enforcement side of the issue, the proposed legislation presents a dilemma that Vigo County Sheriff Greg Ewing said is challenging in multiply ways.
“I can respect both the gun owner, and the company owner,” Ewing said.
While citizens have the constitutional right to own guns, employers also have property rights.
“The intent of the law is to allow people to protect themselves,” he said, “but another issue is you may be putting a gun in a locked car that may not be under surveillance or close to a building, and we have numerous car break-ins in this county.”
Guns are one of the top items that thieves look for when either breaking into homes or vehicles, he noted, and if a person carelessly leaves a weapon in plain view, that only invites a criminal to enter the car.
In the case of workplace violence, Ewing said, having a gun in a vehicle as protection is not going to help the situation.
“It’s not logical to assume that someone would go out to their car and get a gun and bring it back in to resolve the situation,” he said.
But looking at the issue from another angle, Ewing said, someone who travels to-and-from work over a far distance or at night might feel more secure having a gun available in the car in case of a break-down or other incident where the motorist feels unsafe. When that motorist gets to work and has that gun in the car, should the employee be penalized?
“It poses a challenge for both the gun owner and the property owner,” Ewing said, “and I’m not sure it’s something that can easily be solved by more laws.”
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.