No employer or corporation wants it to continue. The simple fact is, however, that from a purely business decision, it makes much more sense to advise an employee to cooperate fully and prohibit any resistance at all.
Do I like it? Of course not! But let's assume that it was a good night and the employee was going to drop $5k at the bank. Best case? The $5k gets stolen. Worst case? The $5k gets stolen and the employee gets killed. As an employer, I'm out $5k, I have to retrain a new employee, and if I'm self-insured and offer employee life insurance as a benefit, I may be out a lot more.
Let's assume the absolute worst and fix a price of $100k for all three items.
When Mama files suit against everybody on the planet, because mean ol' (insert company name) lets their employees go about armed, and one of them killed her precious son ("He was a GOOD boy!") I'm going to pay $500k or more to fight it and still may lose if they gather a jury from among the great unwashed. I likely can't even settle for $100k.
So it's an economic decision, pure and simple.
Now, here's the inside scoop - "no weapons" policies are there for only one reason: To provide the employer with an escape claus. "Hey, you can't sue us. We have a clear policy that prohibits weapons and resistance, and HE has already been terminated for not following our policy."
My advice? Ignore the policy if possible. Few companies do anything more than have the policy to cover their butts. You might get caught, but I'd ratehr be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Oh, one more bit of advice - center mass on heavy .40's, .45, or 10mm. Double-tap headshots only on 9mm and leave that .380 home as a paperweight.
More information about formatting options