This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
So Successful, Yet So Blind by James R. Hall KeepAndBearArms.com -- It seems that LEAR Corporation, based in Southfield, MI, has no regard for
the law that the good citizens of these United States have fought for. The first
item below is a policy memo that was apparently distributed
to each of their locations worldwide. I acquired it from an employee at their
Louisville, KY facility who was wondering if they could enforce it here. As you
can see from my letter to the author (after the memo), they
CAN'T. Take note of the language in paragraph two of the policy --
that was what prompted my response and the campaign I am now waging to generate
feedback from every state in which they have a facility. This man's obvious
disregard for the rights of LEAR employees lit a fire under me. If you want a
near exact copy of the memo, write back and I can send it in MS Word. I took the
address of LEAR Corporation World Headquarters from this page: http://www.lear.com/html/c_contact.htm.
Or go to their home page here: http://www.lear.com/html/lear_corporation.htm.
I went to the UAW website http://www.uaw.org
for the addresses of the local region directors. Please Cc the local union
officials if you decide to correspond to Lear -- it can't hurt to let them know
we are on their side when it comes to the rights of their members. If you have any contacts in other states that have Lear
facilities, I would appreciate you passing this information along. I have
provided a list of the various states at the very bottom of this message for
your convenience, and the Lear website lists the location of every facility
worldwide. James R. Hall Freedom is like good health; without exercise it fades. The LEAR "Zero
Tolerance for Self Defense" Policy September 19, 2001 TO: All HR Managers HR Council FROM: Roger Jackson SUBJECT: WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND WEAPONS POLICY On July l, 2001, a new statute was passed, (refer to MCL 28.421, ett seq),
making it easier to obtain concealed weapons permits in the state of Michigan.
The statute contains language directly relevant to the workplace and employers.
As such, employers may prohibit employees and visitors to the workplace from
carrying concealed weapons in the course of employment. However, employers
cannot prohibit employees from applying for or obtaining a concealed weapons
license, or from carrying a concealed weapon if done in accordance with the
statute. Notwithstanding any state and federal mandates in Michigan
or the state in which your facility is located, Lear Corporation, including all
subsidiary joint venture operations world-wide, adopts a zero tolerance for
weapons and violence in the workplace. A weapon is defined as, but not limited to, any the following: a firearm,
including a BB gun, whether loaded or unloaded; any knife, including a
switchblade or other knife having an automatic spring release device; any police
type baton or night stick; or any martial arts weapon or electronic defense
weapon. In addition, a dangerous instrument is defined as any instrument,
article or substance that under the circumstances is capable of causing harm or
injury. Threats are defined as any threatening behavior, acts of violence or any
related conduct which disrupts another's work performance or the organization's
business purpose. The Lear workplace is not limited to site or location. Employees are
prohibited from carrying weapons and acts of violence in the course of business,
on and off company property, including business travel and entertainment,
recreation, education and training. Additionally, lockers, parking lots and
vehicles on premises and for business use are also included. Employees are responsible for immediately notifying the local Human Resources
representative or their supervisor of any threats which they witnessed or
knowledge of weapons. The local Human Resources department will conduct
investigations with the assistance of local law enforcement as appropriate.
Employees may be suspended without pay until investigations are complete. Violation of this policy will lead to disciplinary action up to and including
dismissal, arrest and prosecution. October 5, 2001 Roger Jackson Mr. Jackson: As a Director of Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed, I have frequently
been asked to provide answers to questions regarding firearms possession and
concealed carry of deadly weapons in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. A number of
corporate policies and employee restrictions that were based on ignorance or
misunderstanding have been brought to my attention. Recently I was made aware of
your memo, WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND WEAPONS POLICY, dated September 19, 2001, and
felt it was necessary to respond. Contained in the memo is the statement
"Notwithstanding any state and federal mandates in Michigan or the state in
which your facility is located, Lear Corporation, including all subsidiary joint
venture operations world-wide, adopts a zero tolerance for weapons and violence
in the workplace." To be very frank, I find it rather disturbing that your
corporation chooses to exhibit such a blatant disregard for the law and the
rights of their employees. Nevertheless, I believe there are certain facts that
you should be aware of as a corporation operating facilities in Kentucky. Your policy stipulates that "Employees are prohibited from carrying
weapons... [in] vehicles on premises and for business use" and that
"Violation of this policy will lead to disciplinary action up to and
including dismissal, arrest and prosecution." The Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky provides a "Bill of Rights" which proclaims
"That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may
be recognized and established, we declare that: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and
inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness. Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State,
subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons
from carrying concealed weapons." Kentucky’s General Assembly has provided legislation that supports the
freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Kentucky Revised Statute 237.110 (14)
deals specifically with the subject of private vehicles as it applies to those
licensed to carry concealed deadly weapons in Kentucky. "A private but not
a public employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed
deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons in vehicles owned
by the employer, but may not prohibit employees or other persons holding a
concealed deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons in
vehicles owned by the employee" and "Possession of weapons in a
vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the weapons
are not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the
premises." The statute does clearly state that you may subject an employee
to disciplinary measures for possession of a weapon on your premises other than
in the employee’s vehicle. I have included for your convenience the entire
statute, and for reference, an Opinion of the Attorney General of Kentucky that
clarifies seemingly conflicting language in the statute. Restricting employees from keeping a firearm locked in their car while on the
job would force them to travel to and from work without the benefit of a
defensive tool. Second shift employees could find themselves stranded on a
lonely road, late at night, subject to the will of opportunistic violent
predators. Thankfully, Kentucky’s founders and recent lawmakers understood
that situations such as this are inevitable and provided protection for it’s
citizens against policies such as yours. Desiring a workplace free of violence is a sublime concept that is not lost
on those of us that believe in one’s right to self defense. Your "zero
tolerance" of violence however, is rather broad in the possibilities of it’s
implementation. Since you make no distinctions regarding self-defense in the
prohibition of "acts of violence", I must wonder whether an employee
could be disciplined merely for protecting his well being. Fighting back against
an attacker does fall into the category of violence, does it not? You also left
the field wide open with "a dangerous instrument is defined as any
instrument, article or substance that under the circumstances is capable of
causing harm or injury". That would include shoelaces, belts, buckles,
keys, coins, combs and just about any tool or office item in your facilities. To
enforce such a restriction would be to expect all of your employees to report
naked to an empty building. You should count your blessings that you neglected
to include "dangerous instrument[s]" in your workplace restrictions.
(The inclusion of that particular definition was rather puzzling!) I can also understand your concerns about the safety issues surrounding
firearms, at least with respect to production facilities. Jewelry, unrestrained
hair, loose clothing or any object that can get caught on machinery, tooling or
fixtures can create a dangerous situation for individual employees. However,
such circumstances are not present in an office environment but your policy
makes no distinction, it apparently is to be applied everywhere. Certainly you
are aware of a number of recent workplace and school attacks. In almost every
instance the perpetrator has done one of three things when "friendly"
firearms arrived on the scene, 1) he surrendered, 2) he was taken down by the
friendly or 3) he commits suicide. In rare instances the perpetrator evaded the
confrontation, left the scene and resumed his killing somewhere else. The number
of casualties in each attack has been directly proportionate to the length of
time it took an armed good guy to show up. A policy such as yours will only disarm the potential victims of violent
criminal acts. An individual that, for whatever reason, has decided to enter
your facility intent on murder will have no regard for your threat of
"disciplinary action", he has in fact already ignored the possibility
of capital punishment. I wonder, in lieu of the ability to provide for their own
safety, what degree of security and well being can Lear Corporation promise to
it’s employees? Can Lear guarantee that no one will be able to enter it’s
facilities in possession of weapons? Can Lear declare with certainty that access
to it’s facilities is entirely limited to lawful and non-violent persons? Is Lear Corporation willing to accept responsibility for lives lost in the
event of a workplace slaying? Sincerely, James R. Hall Enc: 2 cc: Kenneth L. Way, Terry Thurman, Director, UAW Region 3 ABOUT LEAR Lear Corporation (NYSE: LEA), a Fortune 150 company headquartered in
Southfield, Mich., (USA), focuses on automotive interiors and electronics and is
the world's fifth-largest automotive supplier. Sales in 2000 were $14.1 billion.
The company's world-class products are designed, engineered and manufactured by
approximately 120,000 employees at more than 300 facilities located in 33
countries." And has been around since 1917. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR LEAR Investor Relations & Business Planning Corporate Communications Andrea Puchalsky - Director of Corporate Communications Kenneth L. Way - Chairman 21557 Telegraph Road Allen Park, Michigan |
||||||||||||
