Guns @ Work!!!

Guns-at-work question best left to employers

The savage workplace attack at Vaughan Foods in Moore has revived the debate over whether employees should be allowed to carry firearms on the job. Some politicians may be tempted to short-circuit this debate by dictating workplace gun policies through law. Yet doing so is unnecessary and diminishes private property rights.

While questions remain about the Moore attack, the broad outlines of the event are clear. After being fired, Vaughan Foods employee Alton Nolen used a knife to attack and behead a co-worker and injure another. His rampage ended when the plant's chief operating officer shot Nolen. There's little doubt that having an armed employee on site ultimately prevented further injuries and potentially saved lives.

Even so, this doesn't mean lawmakers should respond by requiring businesses to allow employees to carry firearms at will. Nor does it mean firearms are advisable at all work sites. Writing at National Review Online, Charles C.W. Cooke argues that private property rights should be treated with the same respect as gun rights.

Cooke writes that as "a matter of personal preference," he would "certainly encourage private companies to allow their employees to bring their firearms to work ... But, unless one is to wholly rewrite the nature of American constitutional government, these decisions must be reserved to the private sector, and not to local voters or representatives," Cooke says.

The Second Amendment, he notes, is designed "as a check on government and on government alone. It does not apply to Walmart or to FedEx or to Joe's Highway Diner."

Conservatives typically champion at-will employment, which allows business owners to fire a worker at any time and allows workers to quit whenever they choose. Conservatives oppose Obamacare in part because it dictates the insurance choices of employers and employees. Many conservatives oppose minimum wage laws, believing pay should be set by market forces. And most conservatives oppose restrictive government mandates regarding private property use.

Yet when it comes to guns, some self-professed conservatives are willing to weaken private property rights by dictating gun policies to business owners. In doing so, Cooke warns Republicans would be shifting from a "leave us alone" philosophy to a "do as we wish" philosophy that sanctions government intrusion in the private sphere.

A better alternative is to allow market forces to work. If a job hunter feels an employer's gun policies result in a more dangerous workplace, that worker doesn't have to take a job with the employer. If an employer finds company gun policies are a barrier to attracting quality applicants, the employer will likely amend those policies.

Such adjustments are already occurring without government mandates. In the aftermath of the Moore attack, The Oklahoman's Paula Burkes reported that "some Oklahoma employers are considering ways to allow guns in their workplaces." Reportedly, a hospital in southwest Oklahoma and an Oklahoma City-based loan company have sought legal guidance on the issue.

Occasionally, lawmakers may need to provide legal clarification, such as when the private property rights of employees clashed with the private property rights of employers in past instances where workers left a weapon locked in their personal vehicle in a company parking lot.

But for the most part, private citizens -- business owners and workers alike -- are perfectly capable of resolving these issues without "help" from government officials, including lawmakers who mostly want to wave a "pro-gun" banner in political campaigns.

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/10/06/guns-at-work-question-best-left-to-employers/?subscriber=1&utm_content=buffer3c711&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer