If Customers Can Have them, Why Can't Starbucks Employees Carry Guns?
WASHINGTON --- The Starbucks Coffee Company allows customers to carry guns, yet prohibits employees from having weapons in Starbucks stores.
“These two policies seem to be in conflict,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “If employees having guns is dangerous, why isn’t it equally dangerous for customers to have guns?”
Starbucks’ Standards of Business Conduct manual, posted on the company’s website, reads “Partners [employees] may not have or possess any weapon while in a Starbucks store, plant or on other Starbucks property."
The manual is here: http://assets.starbucks.com/assets/sobc-fy09-eng.pdf
The Brady Campaign launched an online petition earlier this year (at www.bradycampaign.org), asking people to send a message to Starbucks to bar firearms in its stores. More than 33,000 have signed the petition. “We continue to urge Starbucks to join other companies in establishing a no gun policy,” Helmke said.
“Starbucks has defended its policy allowing customers to have guns by arguing that it is merely complying with the law. But, of course, prohibiting employees from having guns is also complying with the law,” Helmke said. “The law allows Starbucks to determine its own gun policies. It has made the right choice on guns for employees and the wrong choice on guns for customers.”
The company hosts its annual meeting for shareholders next Wednesday in Seattle.
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Believe me, it's a good thing those employees can't carry guns . The way they're treated by the customers sometimes, it's just a matter of time until some jackass gets himself shot by an employee who's finally had enough.
Any potential robberies can still be prevented by gun-toting customers....
then it's a darn good thing they don't have knives, chairs and stools, glass mugs and boiling-hot liquids in restaurants.
I'm going a different way.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/should-you-just-give-robbers-what-they-want
Just because a company prohibits something doesn't mean people don't have it anyway. I did. Let me think: my employment or MY LIFE. Give me a minute here...
Funny, I would have defended any of my liberal anti-gun co-workers if necessary. They repay that by demanding that my semi-auto pistols and magazines be made illegal because a lone nut or two uses one against the innocent.
99% of us gun owners haven't, don't and wouldn't.
Meaning some people are just naturally angry, impatient, thoughtless jerks for no reason? That's not what the media are telling us now. That's not what the Bradys tell us. They tell us a gun would turn a saint into a demon.
Look up St. Gabriel Possenti. Short version: bandits threaten a town. Possenti shoots a lizard off a rock with a pistol and asks what they think of that. They leave.
Liability laws vary slightly from state to state, but in general if happens on your property or in an area under your direct control, you are open to liability.
If a business allows their emloyees to carry weapons, they incur a greater liability if the weapons are used in an incident. Subsequently their insurance will be more expensive. Therefore, many company policies specifically state employees are not to have weapons in their possesion, and often carry termination as a penalty for first offense. I work for a construction company, and we are no different.
However, an attempt to control non-employees often has the opposite effect with respect to liability because the mere presence of the rule is not enough. To truley limit the liability the company must not only have the written rule with a written consequence, the must also be able to demonstrate a consistent pattern of education and enforcement. In other words, they have to be able to show reasonable effort to inform everyone the rule effects of the rule and the consequences, and they have to show a history of enforcement.
The requirement for enforcement is the stickler when you are dealing with the general public. It is much easier to inspect and regulate employee actions through regular safety meetings and competent management than it is to regulate a transient public. If you attempt to regulate the public, you not only will incur a great deal of expense in metal detectors and security staff, but if anything happens you are still open to the arguement that whatever you were doing was insufficient. The end result is opening yourself to greater liability because you failed to enforce a known policy.
As far as Second Amendment rights, the Second Amendment limits the authority of the Government not the private entity, and is intended to safeguard the right of the people to rise up in arms against a tyranical government (sorry NRA, but it is not for sport or everyday personal protection). Any private entity has the right to regulate activity on their own premesis. Starbucks would not run afoul of the law as long as their policy was more stringent.
If an employee has a gun and misuses it, Starbucks' deep pockets will be sued for megabucks. No one will say to the victims, "You knew the policy but chose to take the risk anyway."
On the other hand , if a terrible tragedy happens that might have been averted by an armed employee, but due to Starbucks' policy happened in the worst way, judges will NOT allow Starbucks to be sued for keeping their employees unarmed. They WILL say to the victims, "You knew the policy and chose to take the risk."
Therefore, Starbucks would have to pay a much larger insurance premium if they allowed their employees to be armed on the job . They make more money when they can keep such costs down.
Given the current legal situation, the best strategy is for Starbucks to fire employees known to be armed, but for trained employees to disobey the policy and carry guns anyway. That way, they can protect themselves, their coworkers and their colleagues while their employer still pays the lower insurance premium. But they have to conceal them well, and be able to afford a period of unemployment if they are discovered.
Life can be so complex.
That is the right idea, "...the best strategy is for Starbucks to fire employees known to be armed, but for trained employees to disobey the policy and carry guns anyway..."
That is exactly how things should be. Most employers have a policy about not having weapons so they are not liable, financially or otherwise. Seriously, if Starbucks did what the Brady Campaign wanted and allowed employees to carry, who do you think would line up first to get a piece of their money pot. I am sure the Brady Campaign would find a way to sue and get their money.
All gun control does is take guns from people who won't be stupid and commit crimes with them. People who would rob and kill aren't going to follow gun laws .
Any company that publicly states its employees can not have guns for protection, but will respect the rights of customers to have them, is making itself more attractive to criminals who know the employees are defenseless. Criminals are less likely to act when they don't know who may have a gun to pull on them in return.
We already have "sensible gun laws "... THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!
People better wake up and demand government compliance with the Constitution!
The 2nd amendment is what gives you the right to defend your self, family , property and Country from ALL enemies both foreign and domestic.
Only law abiding citizens obey laws ! It is insane to remove our most basic protection... that is why the 2nd amendment was written.
TROUBLE IS BREWING IN THIS COUNTRY, AN ARMED "WE THE PEOPLE" IS A STRONG "WE THE PEOPLE"!!!!!
RESIST ALL ATTEMPTS TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS!!!!!
GOOGLE: guns confiscated during Katrina
and you’ll see just how far the government has gone when it comes to breaking the law of the 2nd amendment.
I feel that the question makes as much sense as most "common sense" gun control laws and does not deserve to be debated. What makes it even more riduculous is that the focus on Starbucks is in a state where the controversity is about open carry of unloaded firearms . UNLOADED!
I would not recommend anyone carry openly or concealed unless the weapon is loaded and you were willing to use it under justifiable circumstances.
Could you imagine some whack-o coming into a Starbucks with a loaded semi-auto rifle and shooting up the place at a time when these yahoos are staging a sit-in, all sporting their UNLOADED weapons? Let's hope that at least one of those firearms, if thrown, hits its mark and knocks out the shooter.
Starbucks employees should be armed.. Front Sight firearms school is offering Starbucks employees free gun training.
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2010/03/05/ignatius-piazza-starbucks-employees-just-got-a-bonus /