With my being drafted, uh promoted, last March to Engineering Manager came a weekly 3 hour managers meeting. A couple weeks ago the President brought up the subject of civilian tasers. We have a no-guns employee policy and the no-guns sign on the door despite most office employees either being neutral or pro-gun. Naturally I disagree with both.
The question being put forth to the group was whether we should add no-tasers, or something like that to the employee policy. Or that maybe it should be no weapons, but how should we define a weapon?
If the subjuct should come back for discussion, I'm a bit uncertain as to how to express my opinon. As far as I;m concerned the best company policy is to have no policy. We should remove the sign from the doors and remove the no-guns reference from any and all documents. I think an employer can be in bigger legal trouble having that policy than not.
If asked I'm tempted to say just that, but I hate to take the chance of pissing off the man on top. I;m getting too old to be job hunting again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I fully agree, sometimes (usually) the urge to policy-make needs to be resisted - and removal of extraneous contributory signage is also good.
It seems I'm already too old to be job-hunting - or at least my job-finding mechanism is decrepit and broken.
Post a Comment