Frequent Mass Shootings Are Leading Many Employers To Revisit Their Po ✓ Solved

Frequent mass shootings are leading many employers to revisit their policies involving guns. Most offices ban firearms, but the debate about whether to arm teachers, as pushed by President Donald Trump, is now spilling over into the workplace. Josh Blake, a county commissioner in Lake County, Fla., about 225 miles northwest of Parkland, Fla. where 17 people were gunned down Feb. 14, spent his first board meeting after the shooting proposing changes to the county’s employee handbook. Mr.

Blake decided employers needed to take the lead in protecting workers by allowing more guns. By unanimous vote, county commissioners repealed rules that barred brass knuckles and ammunition and added language to allow people with concealed-carry permits to bring their guns to work. The move covers 776 county employees, from librarians to laborers who fill potholes. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit MANAGEMENT & CAREERS The Gun Issue Comes to the Office Some employers say their workers should be allowed to carry, but most stick with no-tolerance policies Students attending Stuyvesant High School in New York City were among those across the U.S. who walked out March 14 to advocate for stricter gun laws.

PHOTO: DAVE COLETHE WALL STREET JOURNAL Updated March 21, am ET By Rachel Feintzeig “I don’t want my life, my family’s lives or my employees’ lives dependent on someone else’s response time,†said Mr. Blake, who noted that tips to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the Parkland suspect had fallen through the cracks. Some business leaders who want to ban guns entirely on their sites are constrained by so-called parking-lot laws. The laws, in more than 20 states, stop companies from declaring their parking lots and garages as gun-free zones, according to Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun- control advocacy group based in San Francisco. In Ohio, where such a law went into effect last year, many employers worry about the safety implications, including at plants where there are dangerous chemicals, said Don Boyd, the director of labor and legal affairs for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Other firms see the new requirements as an infringement on their property rights. “There’s an enormous amount of anxiety,†Larry Barton, a workplace violence consultant who helps Fortune 500 companies create gun policies, said of the current mood in American corporations. In the days after the Parkland shooting, Mr. Barton said he fielded 40 phone calls from employers in retail and financial services asking for help talking to employees. Workers wanted to know if their colleagues were armed and if guards could carry guns.

Mr. Barton said he believes workers are safer when organizations have a clear policy banning firearms. Many firms are reminding workers of their zero-tolerance policies. Others are adding new screening measures, said Jonathan Wackrow, a managing director with advisory firm Teneo. Jasmine Brown, a manager at a regional chain restaurant in Seattle, Wash., spotted a pistol holstered on the hip of one of her workers earlier this month.

She felt uncomfortable and reminded him he wasn’t supposed to bring the firearm to work. He took the gun home on a break, but when Ms. Brown’s boss got wind of the incident, he threatened to fire the employee. Ms. Brown hopes it doesn’t come to that.

“I didn’t feel threatened at all,†she said. Still, she added, “I wasn’t okay with it.†Mike Kahoe, the president of Group Management Services Inc., a human- resources outsourcing company in Richfield, Ohio, prohibits his 300 employees from bringing guns inside. The company’s office sports a “no weapons allowed†sticker on the front door. An employee was fired last year after carrying a gun in a company vehicle. But Mr.

Kahoe has tweaked the company’s gun policy to allow an exception: People with permission of the president can bring a weapon to work. So far, the only person afforded this special dispensation is him. Mr. Kahoe brings a handgun to the office when he anticipates situations with clients or employees could get violent. For instance, when firing a burly sales rep who slammed a chair down during the uncomfortable conversation, his gun was in a nearby drawer.

“It made me feel a little better,†he said. Some company policies go ignored. Sharp Communication Inc., a security firm that sells radios and body armor, bars employees from bringing guns into its three Alabama locations. Even so, an employee brought his gun to work to sell to a colleague and it accidentally fired, injuring both workers. Sharp fired the two employees and now makes workers sign its no-weapons policy.

Rex Reynolds, Sharp’s president and a former law-enforcement officer, keeps his own handgun in a lockbox in the middle console of his car. If there was ever a threat of violence at the office, “I would certainly return to my car and retrieve my weapon,†he said. —John Simons contributed to this article. Write to Rachel Feintzeig at [email protected] This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit mailto: [email protected] You have sick days. Can you use them?

The Wall Street Journal’s story on sick-shaming—in which healthy colleagues scold their sick peers for showing up to work—inspired hundreds of reader emails, comments and posts on social media. Plenty of readers divulged their own strategies for giving under-the-weather colleagues the hint to go home, including one worker whose colleague left a hand-drawn sign on a boss’s office door that read: “HEY PHLEGM-BOY! GO HOME!†Many reactions, though, zeroed in on a larger point: Even in workplaces that offer an abundance of paid sick leave, the spread of the always-on work culture makes it difficult for many to take time off. Sometimes it’s the boss who pressures staff to show up no matter what. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit MANAGEMENT & CAREERS Can You Really Take That Sick Day? Readers React to Office Sick-Shaming Many argue the presence of hacking, sneezing and sniffling colleagues at work highlights a bigger issue: It’s often not easy to stay home ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER Jan. 30, am ET By Chip Cutter Others said they inflict the pressure themselves, convinced that only a crippling stomach bug or ambulance ride to the emergency room warrants a true sick day. “Someone has to be on their deathbed†before they realize they can’t come to work, said Stephen Schofield, a 28-year-old digital associate at a Chicago public-relations firm, of the mind-set of some of his colleagues.

Cecilia Chang, a managed-care contract specialist near Philadelphia, said that in some previous jobs, she felt she couldn’t step away from work while sick, despite company policies allowing sick time. Some bosses still expected her to respond to emails while home or to complete projects on pre-established timelines. Those who disconnected entirely were seen as inferior, unable to cope with the pressure of the job, or “less than,†she said. “For people to call out sick, they’ve got to feel safe and supported,†she said. Nationally, 71% percent of private-sector workers have some paid sick leave, Labor Department figures show.

Yet, in a recent survey of more than 2,000 adults by Pittsburgh-based market- research firm CivicScience, 54% reported coming to work even while sick. Many workers who responded to the Journal’s story said their ability to take leave depended almost entirely on their relationship with a manager. Tammy Cooley, a human-resources consultant in Boise, Idaho, said she has worked for bosses who expected her to answer the phone every time they called, regardless of whether she felt lousy. She also has experienced bosses who proactively asked: What help do you need so you can take the day off? “It starts at the top,†Ms.

Cooley said. Managers who call into conference calls while sick or email repeatedly on vacation build a culture of “if I’m not seen, I’m forgotten.†That puts the onus on colleagues to keep sick colleagues at bay—one reason some act as sick- shamers. Clyde Romero, who retired in 2015 as a captain at American Airlines Group Inc., flying the A330 on long-haul international routes, said he had a no-tolerance policy for sick co-pilots in his cockpit, fearing they could infect others or not properly perform their in-flight duties. Newsletter Sign-up When crew members showed up ill before a trip, he would tell them, “No, you’re not coming with me,†he recalled. There was no shaming, but a question: “What the hell are you doing here?†“In the airline industry, when lives are at stake, and you have to be at your best performance, there’s none of this†political correctness, he said.

“If you make a mistake, you’re going to be in trouble.†Some companies do go to lengths to remind workers to steer clear of the office while contagious. In November, Rosana Cerna, vice president of people and business operations at Great Place to Work, a people analytics and research firm, emailed the company’s roughly 80 U.S. employees with the subject line, “Winter Colds... Not for the Office.†She told sick colleagues to avoid the temptation of coming into work while ill: “If you ever come into the office coughing, sneezing or feeling like you want to crawl into bed....Go home!†In case her words didn’t drive home the message, she also included an emoji with a thermometer in its mouth. Ms.

Cerna said many employees later thanked her for sending the reminder. The existence of workplace shaming, though, suggest many managers aren’t doing enough, readers said. “What’s happening now is you’re seeing this from the bottom-up because it’s not happening at the top,†said Karyn Detje, a founder of FABRIC, a people and human-resources consulting practice based in Washington, Conn. Ms. Detje advises managers to think of their sick staff members like family members.

If the boss’s son or daughter became sick, that manager would likely recommend the child stay home from work, she reasoned. “That’s exactly how you should be treating your employees,†Ms. Detje said. Write to Chip Cutter at [email protected] This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit mailto: [email protected] Two thousand six hundred seventeen times a day.

That is how often the average person taps, pokes, pinches or swipes their personal phone. It all adds up to about 2 hours and 25 minutes, according to a study by mobile app research firm Dscout Inc. And a good chunk of that time comes during work hours. Jason Brown had had enough of it. Two years ago, the chief executive of Brown, Parker & DeMarinis Advertising paused for a moment to look across the meeting room as he delivered a presentation.

The majority of those gathered were fiddling with their phones. “I lost it,†says Mr. Brown. In his anger, he issued a companywide edict: “Don’t show up at a meeting with me with your phone. If someone shows up with their phone, it’ll be their last meeting.†This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit MANAGEMENT & CAREERS ‘I Lost It’: The Boss Who Banned Phones, and What Came Next Employers limit cellphone use to regain attentiveness. Workers use watches and laptops instead. ILLUSTRATION: OTTO STEININGER May 16, am ET By John Simons Many managers are conflicted about how—or even whether—to limit smartphone use in the workplace. Smartphones enable people to get work done remotely, stay on top of rapid business developments and keep up with clients and colleagues. But the devices are also the leading productivity killers in the workplace, according to a 2016 survey of more than 2,000 executives and human-resource managers conducted by CareerBuilder, an HR software and services company.

There is also some evidence that productivity suffers in the mere presence of smartphones. When workers in a recent study by the University of Texas and University of California had their personal phones placed on their desks—untouched—their cognitive performance was lower than when their devices were in another location, such as in a handbag or the pocket of a coat hanging near their workspace. “I firmly believe that multitasking is a myth,†says Bill Hoopes, an IT project manager at L3 Technologies Inc. Mr. Hoopes put his convictions into practice at group gatherings when he took over a team of about 25 people at the aerospace defense company three years ago.

“Every time someone’s phone went off, they had to stand for the rest of the meeting,†he says. Before long, he asked the group to leave their phones at their desks when two or more people got together. Over time, he says, he has noticed not only an improvement in the quality of conversation and ideas in meetings, but also that his people seem to show more respect and appreciation for one another’s work. Mat Ishbia, CEO of United Wholesale Mortgage, banned technology from meetings about two years ago and recently asked that his executive team and other managers not check their phones as they walk to and from meetings. “Don’t act like we’re too important to say hello,†he says he told them.

“Make eye contact with people.†Mr. Ishbia is now piloting another solution to phone addiction. A group of about 250 workers are part of an experiment in which they refrain from all personal phone use at their desks. If they want to use their devices they must go to a common area designated for phone use and socializing. Forty-five days into the trial run, workers are checking their phones a lot less, he said.

Bryan Lee, a product manager at enterprise software company Docker Inc., suspected that his daily phone use was a problem, so last month he installed an app called Moment on his iPhone that tracks the total amount of daily time he spent on his phone. His first measurement revealed four hours in a day. Since early April, he’s reduced that to roughly an hour. At work, Mr. Lee persuaded his team of eight to download the app and post their daily phone hours on a whiteboard.

The team member with the lowest time gets bragging rights. “We’re thinking of having a trophy we can pass around—or maybe just shaming the loser,†he says. Handheld devices can be a valuable source of information during office gatherings. Shane Wooten, CEO of enterprise video platform company Vidplat LLC, recently surprised a group of corporate clients with a request that they leave their electronic devices outside. “They didn’t like it,†he says.

Since January, Mr. Wooten has limited personal devices at meetings with his employees and faced some resistance. Workers argue their phones are vital for staying in touch with a sick child or researching information relevant to the meeting. “I told them we’re not in middle school,†he says. “I’m not collecting phones in a bucket.

Just don’t have it out faceup on the table.†Google Inc. announced last week that the next version of its operating system for Android phones will include a feature that is meant to help people who feel tethered to their devices. It will let users see how much time they spend on their phones, show which apps they use the most and display how often the phone gets unlocked. Software may be the key, because not all workplace solutions work. The no-phones-at-meetings rule at Mr. Brown’s ad agency lasted about two months, because it wasn’t all that effective.

Instead of phones, staffers wore smartwatches to meetings or brought their laptops, which were just as distracting, he says, adding that workers said they were worried about missing calls and emails from clients. Now, he tells his 40 employees not to attend meetings unless they really have to be there and strongly advises they fully engage. Mr. Brown missed his phone too and likened the experience to outlawing alcohol during the Prohibition era: “A theoretical state that almost no one wants to live in, including those making the rules,†he says. Write to John Simons at [email protected] Appeared in the May 17, 2018, print edition as 'Eye on the Ball, Not on the Phone.' mailto: [email protected] This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit

Paper for above instructions

Mass Shootings and Workplace Gun Policies: A Growing Concern

The rising frequency of mass shootings in the United States has led many employers to re-evaluate their gun policies in the workplace. The high-profile incidents, such as the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida, which claimed the lives of 17 individuals, have ignited fierce debates regarding the presence of firearms in public spaces, including offices and educational institutions. In this climate of heightened anxiety, employers are faced with difficult decisions about whether to loosen restrictions on firearms in the workplace, create new employee safety protocols, or reinforce existing policies that ban firearms altogether.

Crime and the Workplace

Josh Blake, a county commissioner in Lake County, Florida, exemplifies the perspective of those in favor of arming employees for self-protection. Following the Parkland tragedy, Blake advocated for changes to the county’s employee handbook to permit firearms for those with concealed-carry permits. This policy shift was driven by a belief that personal safety should not depend solely on external law enforcement, who may not arrive quickly enough in a crisis (Feintzeig, 2018). This sentiment is echoed by many employers who fear that their employees may not be safe without the means to defend themselves.
On the other hand, some employers remain staunchly opposed to allowing firearms in the workplace. A report from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence critiques state laws that inhibit companies from declaring their spaces gun-free, arguing that such regulations undermine workplace safety (Giffords Law Center, 2021). Employers express concerns that permitting guns may create a hostile work environment and increase the potential for workplace accidents or conflicts, especially in settings that involve volatile employees or dangerous materials (Boyd, 2018).

Workplace Policies and Employee Concerns

In light of the growing unease catalyzed by mass shootings, workplace violence consultants emphasize the importance of having clear, comprehensive gun policies. Larry Barton, a prominent consultant in this field, recognizes the changing dynamics within corporate America, noting that many companies are assessing their policies in response to employee anxiety following tragic incidents. His recommendation leans towards reinforcing zero-tolerance policies regarding firearms (Barton, 2018). Business leaders are acknowledging that a clear stance can foster a safer workplace environment and reduce confusion among employees regarding the presence of weapons.
Employees have also expressed their discomfort regarding coworkers carrying firearms. Jasmine Brown, a manager at a restaurant in Seattle, recounted an incident where an employee arrived at work with a pistol (Feintzeig, 2018). Although she did not feel directly threatened, the mere presence of a firearm created discomfort. Conflicts like this highlight the emotional divide among employees regarding gun policies—some favoring the rights of individuals to carry guns for protection, while others prioritize a weapons-free environment.

Dual Perspectives on Firearm Presence in Workspaces

Dual perspectives about gun presence in workspaces reflect broader societal divides regarding firearm ownership and rights. For employees who may have experienced violence in their lives or who belong to marginalized communities, the idea of guns in the workplace can provoke psychological distress (Jeong, 2019). On the other hand, certain employees advocate for their right to carry firearms as a means of empowerment, fueling discussions surrounding Second Amendment rights.
To navigate these diverging views, it is crucial for employers to establish comprehensive policies that consider both legal frameworks around firearms and the psychological wellbeing of their employees (Towers, 2020). Policies can be designed with input from employees, experts, and legal advisors. In doing so, companies can strike a balance between personal rights and the responsibility to maintain a safe workplace.

Enhanced Safety Measures

To prevent potential violence, workplace safety measures are being implemented by many organizations. These can include employee screening processes, creating protocols for managing threatening behaviors, and providing training for crisis management. Some firms have heightened security measures, hiring trained professionals to monitor workspaces and confront potential threats before they escalate (Wackrow, 2018). However, adopting these strategies can prompt pushback from employees concerned about invasive security measures or heightened workplace surveillance.
Moreover, companies may invest in mental health resources and employee assistance programs (EAPs) to cultivate an atmosphere of support and open communication. For instance, allowing employees to access counseling services can help de-escalate personal issues that might contribute to workplace violence (Smith, 2020). Investing in employee wellbeing not only promotes a healthier work environment but also mitigates risks related to violence and anxiety.

Conclusion

The rising incidence of mass shootings has forced employers to reevaluate their policies regarding firearms in the workplace. The debate is complex, reflecting both personal rights and collective concerns for safety. Employers must navigate these challenges by seeking comprehensive policies that prioritize both the right to personal protection and a commitment to maintaining a secure work environment. Embracing collaborative discussions, enhanced security measures, and mental health resources can lead to a workplace that respects individual rights while safeguarding employees against potential threats. The need for a balanced approach to firearm policies in the workplace remains crucial as society continues to grapple with the realities of gun violence.

References

1. Barton, L. (2018). Workplace violence: Assessing the danger. Workplace Violence Journal.
2. Boyd, D. (2018). Understanding parking-lot laws and their implications for employers. Ohio Chamber of Commerce Report.
3. Feintzeig, R. (2018). The gun issue comes to the office. Wall Street Journal.
4. Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2021). Gun violence and workplace safety. Retrieved from [giffords.org](https://giffords.org).
5. Jeong, M. (2019). Psychological impact of gun violence on employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
6. Smith, J. (2020). Investing in employee mental health to prevent workplace violence. Human Resource Management Review.
7. Towers, T. (2020). Balancing gun rights and workplace safety. Safety and Health at Work.
8. Wackrow, J. (2018). Strategies for enhanced workplace safety amid rising violence. Teneo Advisory Report.
9. American Psychological Association. (2020). The effect of workplace violence on mental health. Retrieved from [apa.org](https://apa.org).
10. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2019). Recommendations for preventing workplace violence. Retrieved from [cdc.gov/niosh](https://cdc.gov/niosh).