Curious Sign Question

[terryg]

The following sign was posted on a construction site by the general contractor. I work for the company who hiredthe GC to perform the work.
[img]

Now, my employer has a no gun policy so it had no bearing on me. I would imagine that any subcontractor, while not working for the GC directly, would still be bound by this written notice - correct? It's not correct language, but it doesn't have to be correct from an employer.

But I wonder if my work did not keep employees from carrying; would I, as an employee of the customer and essentially the customer representative, be bound to this sign? What about other persons like a city inspector who are not technically hired by the GC? In some since, when a general contractor begins construction it becomes their site and they are responsible for enforcing safety measures, etc. So even though the property actually belongs to my employer, does it being a construction site grant some temporary legal ownership to the GC reducing the posting requirements?

Just my curiosity running wild.

t
---

Edited to clarify that I do not work for the contractor.

[jester]

A sign prohibiting FORD trucks has a much legal weight.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This sign was posted on a construction site where I work by the general contractor:


Now, my employer has a no gun policy so it had no bearing on me. I would imagine that any subcontractor, while not working for the GC directly, would still be bound by this written notice - correct? It's not correct language, but it doesn't have to be correct from an employer.

But I wonder if my work did not keep employees from carrying; would I, as an employee of the customer and essentially the customer representative, be bound to this sign? What about other persons like a city inspector who are not technically hired by the GC? In some since, when a general contractor begins construction it becomes their site and they are responsible for enforcing safety measures, etc. So even though the property actually belongs to my employer, does it being a construction site grant some temporary legal ownership to the GC reducing the posting requirements?

Just my curiosity running wild.

t

This sign means nothing to a CHL, whether an employee or not.

Chas.

[terryg]

This sign means nothing to a CHL, whether an employee or not.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,

Ok, now I am confused. Your saying that the sign has no bearing to any employee? Including some working directly for the general contractor? Again, I don't work for that GC and my question was about others on the premises - but I am just trying to understand your reply better.

I thought (and was told at my CHL class) that a sign did not have to meet 30.06 requirements to constitute legal notice to an employee (and that even oral notification is sufficient).

t

[The Annoyed Man]

This sign means nothing to a CHL, whether an employee or not.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,

Ok, now I am confused. Your saying that the sign has no bearing to any employee? Including some working directly for the general contractor? Again, I don't work for that GC and my question was about others on the premises - but I am just trying to understand your reply better.

I thought (and was told at my CHL class) that a sign did not have to meet 30.06 requirements to constitute legal notice to an employee (and that even oral notification is sufficient).

Don't confuse what an employer may do vis-a-vis employee policy, with what an employer may do to have you arrested. An employer can fire a CHL for violating the employee policy if caught, but the employer cannot have the employee arrested for violating that policy if caught... ...unless compliant 30.06 notification was given and the employee persisted in carrying past the sign.

The sign in the picture you provided doesn't state that this is an employee policy or any such thing. It is addressed to all CHL holders, and it does not meet 30.06 requirements for the sign to have force of law. The law specifically states that when a sign is specifically directed at CHL holders, it must be 30.06 compliant. PC 30.06 is not a guideline, it is the law. Legally, your sign has the same force of law as this sign, which is to say, none at all:


Does that help?

[terryg]

Don't confuse what an employer may do vis-a-vis employee policy, with what an employer may do to have you arrested. An employer can fire a CHL for violating the employee policy if caught, but the employer cannot have the employee arrested for violating that policy if caught... ...unless compliant 30.06 notification was given and the employee persisted in carrying past the sign.

Does that help?

Yes it does - thanks. And I actually did know this, but for some reason I wasn't putting two and two together when seeing it on the construction site.

This sign means nothing to a CHL, whether an employee or not.

So to respectfully correct Mr. Cottons reply, perhaps the following would be more accurate:

"This sign has no legal bearing to a CHL, whether an employee or not."


---

And so a direct employee of the GC could be terminated for carrying beyond the posting.
A sub-contractor could be asked to leave the job-site - then his employer could decide to fire him or not.
As an employee of the paying customer, the GC would have no means of retribution, legal or otherwise, if I was carrying on the site (if I weren't already prohibited by my employer).
An inspector or other agent on the premises could also only be asked to leave by the GC.