chevron complies with sb51

[diat150]

To: All Employees and Contractors

Subject: SB 51 – Louisiana Gun Law

A new law has been enacted by the Louisiana Legislature that prevents a company from prohibiting an employee in lawful possession of a firearm from transporting the firearm onto a company parking area and storing it in a privately owned, locked vehicle. Chevron’s long-standing policy has been to prohibit guns on Chevron property. This policy is based on Chevron’s OE tenet regarding workplace safety and section 654(a)(1) of the Federal OSH Act.

Management continues to believe that the safest and best practice is not to transport firearms onto Chevron property. Employees should carefully consider Chevron’s commitment to safety when deciding whether to keep a firearm in their locked vehicles in a Chevron parking area. Nevertheless, an employee who elects to bring a firearm onto Chevron property will be expected to comply with the following requirements:

An individual in lawful possession of a firearm that is transported onto Company property in a privately owned vehicle must at all times (i) keep the firearm stored in the locked vehicle; and (ii) keep the firearm in a locked case. Although not required by the new law, Chevron recommends a trigger lock be used for the security of the firearm.

In the interest of safety and to ensure compliance with the law, individuals bringing firearms onto Chevron property will be required to inform Security and complete a Firearms Notification Form.

The new law only extends to parking areas; firearms are not permitted in Chevron buildings or in any other area of Chevron property.

The failure to comply with this policy could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Contractors to whom CAIs have not been issued should be informed of this policy by Chevron employees before they arrive at a Chevron location.

If you have any questions or concern, please don't hesitate to contact your supervisor or me directly.

Have a safe and productive day.

 

[penguin]

So now they want a list of who is carrying in their vehicle so they can harass their employees. That's what it sounds like to me.

 

[owen502]

Just don't say anything they will never know. Unless they are searching cars. In that case, just inform them because they will find it in the search. Either way they know. So.... Not searching, no tell. Searching, tell. Sounds pretty easy to me.

 

[Cajun_Chuck]

That is much better....still not quite there though.

 

[tunatuk]

Can they legally search your car in the first place? What would happen if you say no?

I know what I can do while I'm at work in terms of searching people's things...I just don't know about private employers.

 

[owen502]

They can either search or not let you in or fire you. The 4th amendment only protects you from the government.

 

[diat150]

>>Employees should carefully consider Chevron’s commitment to safety when deciding whether to keep a firearm in their locked vehicles in a Chevron parking area.

>>In the interest of safety and to ensure compliance with the law, individuals bringing firearms onto Chevron property will be required to inform Security and complete a Firearms Notification Form.

these two statements kinda scream out to me I dare you to bring a firearm on chevron property.

 

[XD-GEM]

It seems many employers will be using this tactic - one of the unforseen consequences of the new law. We haven't heard from our HR yet, but I'd bet that they're trying to find a way to prohibit possession in spite of the law.

 

[penguin]

Can they legally search your car in the first place? What would happen if you say no?

I know what I can do while I'm at work in terms of searching people's things...I just don't know about private employers.

They have the right to search any vehicles that come on their property. You have no expectation of privacy.

 

[BSGA]

Just don't say anything they will never know. Unless they are searching cars. In that case, just inform them because they will find it in the search. Either way they know. So.... Not searching, no tell. Searching, tell. Sounds pretty easy to me.

Not quite. If you are required to inform security and you don't until the search is in progress, then you have violated their rules and risk dismissal.

 

[owen502]

Not quite. If you are required to inform security and you don't until the search is in progress, then you have violated their rules and risk dismissal.

They have to give you a chance to notify them. Right? I doubt they do searches in the middle of the work shift. They do them as you show up.

 

[spanky]

When does or did this take effect? I haven't heard or been told anything at work and my company had a no weapons on property policy.

 

[dawg23]

They have to give you a chance to notify them. Right? I doubt they do searches in the middle of the work shift. They do them as you show up.

I don't know about Chevron's current regs, but other plants do not notify employees before searches.

ExxonMobil uses "contraband dogs." They are trained to alert on drugs and explosives (ammo). They take the dogs through parking areas unannounced. If the dog "alerts" on your car, it (the car, not the dog) is searched. If they find street drugs, prescription drugs for which you do not have a prescription, firearms, ammo, even empty shell casings ............. you is suddenly and officially persona non grata at their site.

 

[diat150]

When does or did this take effect? I haven't heard or been told anything at work and my company had a no weapons on property policy.

chevron just sent out the email yesterday so I assume the policy is in effect now.

 

[swagge1]

August 15.

 

[owen502]

I do not believe I saw anywhere in the law where it said "you can keep firearms in your car in the parking lot, only if you notify your employer". I don't know if this policy follows the law or not. We need to ask a lawyer who worked on getting the law passed.

 

[dawg23]

Corporate employment practices policies and statutes are often different.

The new law in no way prohibits making the employees notify the employer. ExxonMobil is doing the same thing.

Wanna bet on whether or not Exxon & Chevron had some lawyers in the room when they drafted their policies ?

 

[XD-GEM]

I do not believe I saw anywhere in the law where it said "you can keep firearms in your car in the parking lot, only if you notify your employer". I don't know if this policy follows the law or not. We need to ask a lawyer who worked on getting the law passed.

These employers are going beyond what is in the law; they are not going against it - at least not the letter of the law. The law states that they cannot prohibit you from storing your gun in your car in their main, secure lot unless they provide either a nearby alternate lot or a storage place. I'm frankly surprised that these guys would choose the storage place option; the highest likelyhood of anyone having an accidental discharge of a weapon is in loading/unloading or reholstering. If they are truely concerned with safety, they should advocate storing in your car, preferably in a lockbox. That way, gun handling is kept to a minimum and no one knows the gun is there (less likely to attract theft).

I suspect that the employers who are adding these other requirements to storage on their property have an ulterior motive, although I cannot fathom what it would be. Anything I come up with would be pure specualtion and could conceivably seem borderline paranoid, and I have no wish to impugn the motives of these businesses.

Perhaps one of the executives of the companies involved would care to post their reasoning here (I do not doubt that at least SOMEONE in authority at these or other places is checking on this forum - it would seem a prudent thing to do).

 

[CajunTim]

I would assume it is to discourage people from bringing firearms on the property.

 

[dawg23]

I'm frankly surprised that these guys would choose the storage place option; the highest likelyhood of anyone having an accidental discharge of a weapon is in loading/unloading or reholstering. If they are truely concerned with safety, they should advocate storing in your car, preferably in a lockbox. That way, gun handling is kept to a minimum and no one knows the gun is there (less likely to attract theft).

I suspect that the employers who are adding these other requirements to storage on their property have an ulterior motive, although I cannot fathom what it would be. Anything I come up with would be pure specualtion and could conceivably seem borderline paranoid, and I have no wish to impugn the motives of these businesses.

Perhaps one of the executives of the companies involved would care to post their reasoning here (I do not doubt that at least SOMEONE in authority at these or other places is checking on this forum - it would seem a prudent thing to do).

I spoke with one of the executives at one of the major oil companies when their new regs were released. He was well aware of, and agrees with, the concept that loading & unloading a weapon is the most likely time for an ND. He was apparently overruled by those who felt that they really needed to know where the weapons are at all times (in the vault).

The "workaround solution" to the risk of ND's was to insert language making it a requirement that you unload the weapon before entering the plant property, and that you not reload the weapon until you have left the property.

In fairness (?) to the big oil companies, this is a huge "culture shock" to them. Their attorneys have for years frightened them with liability concerns associated with guns at work. Under the circumstances they have done, in most cases, a fairly decent job of setting up a new system in a very short (for a major oil company) time frame.

I don't like all the elements of some of the new corporate regs. But they could have taken a much more sinister path .........challenge the law in court, or ignore the new law and wait until an employee took them to court. These options were considered and were ultimately rejected. Either path would have added years to the implementation of "guns at work" policies - and that's assuming the oil companies lost in court. Appeals could have dragged this out for a l-o-o-o-n-g time. (e.g. How long did the Valdez appeals drag on ?)

Bottom Line: We are far better off than we were before the new law was passed. Grumbling about the new rules is of little or no benefit. We are better served (IMHO) by working within the various new rules to help ensure that all goes smoothly.