“’I don’t want to be made out to be some tomb raider,’ said Ros, 37 and a single mom of three. ‘I am a woman who would like to have an opportunity to protect herself.'” Carrying gun to Wells Fargo got branch manager fired [at marketwatch.com]
“’I don’t want to be made out to be some tomb raider,’ said Ros, 37 and a single mom of three. ‘I am a woman who would like to have an opportunity to protect herself.'” Carrying gun to Wells Fargo got branch manager fired [at marketwatch.com]
What she doesn’t understand is that her gun is a precursor, a “gateway drug,” if you will, to tomb raiding. And gang involvement. And suicide. /sarc
And hot pants, revealing tops., etc.?
And to think it used to be required for people to bring their guns to work with Wells Fargo.
quite frankly, mr. eastwood, you have no right talking about banks and fire power. i know what you did in thunderbolt and lightfoot. have you no shame, sir? -_-
At least here, at TTAG, the conversations on the topic tend to be somewhat “normal”, but if you follow the original link to MarketWatch, it seems the commenters there have all succumbed to leftard dumbass disease.
Really?
TTAG is just as wacky and is the other side of the coin.
I can’t help but notice you’re here among us.
Here, in Canada, there are never armed guards at banks, but cash in transit guards always carry firearms (now typically .40 pistols). Are armed bank guards common in many U.S. cities? I read somewhere that, in NYC, off-duty police moonlight as bank guards.
You see it on some occasions. Most of the times though, there are no armed guards at US banks
There’s little point to actually having an armed guard at a bank. The majority of robbers will go for the drawers at the counter which hold limited quantities of cash and frequently have dye packs. Time is of the essence if they want to avoid the PoPo.
Having an armed guard that can cause a shoot out over a few grand isn’t worth it since all that money is Federally Insured…
It’s a cosmetic measure, and gives a false sense of security, but it probably does deter some robbers.
This is one of those occasions where Open Carry is not the best plan. Seems like people who rob banks generally case the joint first and they know to take down the armed guard as soon as they enter the door. They may not shoot him, but they will definitely be on top of him before he can react. Seems like more safety theater for the patrons than an actual effective means of stopping bank robberies.
See open carry only works when there is a large quantity on individuals doing it. If only a few payed individuals do it, they can be targeted first, mostly because is their job to stand in there at all times. Open carry of a normal individual throws a monkey wrench into a “predictable” step by step plan. Because of too many variables.
So is a give and take, if the average person open carries it works, if only a few do they are targeted. I guess it boils down to numbers.
There are three issues at work with her incident.
One, she HAD to have signed a disclosure agreement with Wells Fargo which explicitly forbade weapons on the premesis as a condition of employment. Like it or not, no right is absolute enough to extend to private commerce between two people -which ultimately is what an employment slot is. I can’t call my boss a fat jerk and expect to keep my job on 1st Amendment grounds. Nor can I sign an NDA, blab about the stuff I’m not supposed to, then say the Constitution gurantees my right to a big mouth.
Two: yes, in an ideal world , bearing arms at work would be a “no big deal” proposition. But , realistically, it always will be so long as companies are headquartered in anti gun economic centers- note that WF is based out of San Fransisco, CA. Most finance oriented businesses are located in NYC, Chicago, LA, or other urban gun-free zones.When HQ in Antigunville says “NO GUNS” , they generally don’t ask the folks in Kentucky how they feel about the rules.
So, it would seem solving the problem isn’t forcing employers to not fire people for being concealed carriers. After all, that just means the hoplophobic staff will just pick a different reason to fire someone-or not name one at all.
Solving this means finding a way to normalize gun rights as a social constant, everywhere- not forcing employers to dodge another set of rules. Example- branch manager sees one of his employees are armed and freaks out. He wants her gone, but can’t use the gun itself as a reason. Oops, she was two minutes late last Wednesday. Terminated for cause-Tardiness.
To truly solve the problem for good, that means kicking down the brick walls of civil disarmament in the economic centers of America. So long as State A criminalizes ccw which is legal in State B, folks will get burned like this.
It’s early and my reading comprehension may be a bit slow, but your solution is to normalize concealed carry by NOT concealed carrying?
How about normalize OPEN carry, and then conceal carry won’t seem like a big deal at all…
I don’t think he said that.
No…. I believe they said normalize concealed carry and it wont be an issue in the future, because employers won’t ban guns on their property. Until then, if you agreed to work somewhere where guns are NOT allowed, either don’t accept the job or don’t take your gun to work. If you do take your gun to work (which is illegal if it is posted in most states), don’t be suprised/butthurt when you get fired.
The five largest U.S. banks are actually chartered out of Ohio, North Carolina and South Dakota. That can be different from their physical corporate HQ locations, though.
In Wells Fargo’s case, they are still HQ’d in San Francisco, but Wells itself has been bought a few times over the years. Probably the last big purchase was by Norwest Bank out of Minnesota. Norwest’s CEO became CEO of merged company and Wells Fargo’s stock history reflects Norwest’s pre-merger history. They kept the Wells Fargo name because of its storied history, valuable as a marketing gimmick. Subsequent mergers with major banks like Wachovia would have further diluted the original Wells Fargo corporate culture. Nevertheless, your point is valid: these big banks are big city based, whichever big city, and that trends-to-veers toward liberal and anti-gun.
Not all private agreements are legally binding, however. What moral, legal, Constitutional principle allows an employer to deny an employee exercising his right to carry, while simultaneously barring that same employer from preventing that same employee from wearing a cross on an unseen necklace?
Aside from normalizing carrying, which is also a good point of yours, we need to continue the fight for formalizing carrying. Firearms freedom is a natural, civil, human, Constitutional, God-given right and deserves at least as much protection as other rights. We need to re-establish its preeminence as a right perched high in the pantheon of rights, and not as a mere personal decision or preference lying low in public perception like smoking.
The conglomeration/mishmass is fundamentally Norwest (3 relatives working for various areas).
The Constitutional principle is called “invidious discrimination against suspect classifications”. Among the categories are sex, race, religion, sexual orientation (the newest category), and national origin. So far, gun owners have not been deemed a group invidiously discriminated against, such that ownership or bearing of firearms is not protected against private discrimination.
“these big banks are big city based, whichever big city, and that trends-to-veers toward liberal and anti-gun.”
Odd, huh? I thought that was where the crime was!
ST,
You wrote, “Nor can I sign an NDA, blab about the stuff I’m not supposed to, then say the Constitution gurantees my right to a big mouth.”
Your example is not an apples-to-apples comparison. None of our rights empower us to offensively harm someone else. Blabbing about a company’s trade secrets harms the company. That is why an employee cannot blab trade secrets and claim First Amendment protection.
An employee who carries a concealed handgun to work is not harming the company nor anyone else. And companies obviously have a vested interest to manage the conduct of their employees in a way that maximizes business performance. Since an armed employee who carries concealed is not harming anyone or affecting business performance, the company has no say (morally and ethically speaking) in the matter.
Look at is this way. A company cannot demand that someone work in a dangerous environment without safety equipment and procedures even though the safety equipment and procedures reduce profits. Why is that? Because human life takes precedence over corporate profits. If we are going to be self-consistent, the same principle should apply to employees who wish to carry concealed at work.
Your argument sounds reasonable enough, but it does not account for employers’ view of the situation, which is, quite simply, that employees bearing arms increases the risk that an on the job shooting by an employee will occur–something that of course would harm the employer. From a risk management perspective (which allegedly is pushed by insurance companies), the risk is intolerable/too great and guns must be banned. And being the owner/possessor of the place where the business is conducted, the employer as a private person has the right to ban guns by anyone coming onto the property.
We must concede that, although it is probably quite low, “going postal” is still a known and appreciable risk when employees get into on the job disputes or are terminated. For the employer (who pays the death benefit under workers’ compensation), one death is one too many. thus, to them it makes good business sense to prohibit guns on company premises, including parking lots.
“… employers’ view of the situation … that employees bearing arms increases the risk that an on the job shooting by an employee will occur …”
I imagine many employers think that way … and I believe it is an utterly and completely incorrect view. The analysis is simple: employers do trust their employees to leave their firearms at home but they do not trust their employees to refrain from shooting coworkers in a dispute. Which is it? Do employers trust their employees or not?
Regardless, even if an employer carries more risk if it fails to prohibit employees from having firearms, that is just part of the cost of doing business. Why? Because their policy decision has deadly consequences to their employees. For example providing respirators to paint booth employees increases the cost of doing business but businesses provide respirators anyway because their employees could die without one. Besides, employers carry all kinds of risks. Both employees and patrons could suffer an injury at the business and receive substantial monetary awards for damages.
Certainly businesses need extremely wide latitude to manage employee and even patron conduct to maximize business potential. That latitude is not limitless however. The inherent dignity of human life demands that corporate profits must occasionally take a back seat to employees and patrons.
The risk management argument has been made before. However, nobody ever seems to compare the plausibility to the reality.
I’m just not seeing many companies sued because of something involving an employee’s lawful use of a firearm. Neither am I seeing exorbitant business insurance rates at gun stores, gun ranges, firearms training facilities and the like, places where employees are not only allowed, but required, to be armed.
If anything, I’m seeing companies routinely being sued by victims following workplace shootings; regardless whether it was an employee or a customer or even just an opportunistic spree killer doing the killing. Cracker Barrell comes to mind, as does that small signage shop in Minneapolis, whose name I don’t recall. Lawyers are claiming the companies were negligent and had a duty to protect employees, patrons, etc.
The smart risk management approach would be to re-examine this entire issue in light of current data, not outdated assumptions.
Well, can’t have that, can we? Far better for an intruding criminal to shoot employees, than the other way around.
No one can convince me that criminals are not receiving this message. LOUD AND CLEAR.
Uncommon_sense
I really appreciated your response. Can’t comment to much because of the sensitivity of the case, but I did read your response and wanted to say, “Thank-You.” Have an awesome week! 🙂
She was obviously a threat to Wells Fargo. Too much common sense and practical wisdom with a strong moral compass- taking care of herself and her family.
Can’t have that in the banking biz, where ripping off the little guy is the name of the game.
The good news is some smart employer is going to snap her right up and she will be making three times what she was at Wells Fargo.
By the way, that MarketWatch link went to a rather poorly sourced and I am guessing rushed deadline piece by a young lady named Christina Rexrode who covers the banking business. The “news” article attempts to show “both” sides but cites first an anti-gun group, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and then an anti-gun academic, from State University of New York.
Since she covers the banking segment, and the article is obviously about some single mom cracker type lowly banking person in god-forbid Florida, can understand why Christina’s hip smart young college grad in the big city Wall Street mind set *might* be somewhat slanted towards Wells Fargo, but as a news reporter in a fact based field, I’d expect a bit more rigor, especially at the Wall Street Journal.
Checking her twitter “following” profile is illuminating- other than finance and hedge fund feeds, all normal for ambitious young hard chargers in Manhattan, the only NON-FINANCE feeds are:
CA AG Kamala Harris… (enough said)
85Broads…a young wymins changing the world, blah blah, networking group with tweets peppered by Gloria Steinem… (sigh…)
HELLO- CHRISTINA- you need to get out more, girl…
Robert, this might be an opportunity…a challenge, but still- she roots for the Tar Heels, so one hopes she spent some time in the South with normal folks outside the NYC bubble, and before she becomes one with the Borg, maybe theres hope for her, and heres an idea:
Kirsten can you take this young lady to the range one day?
I want to chat with you privately, please get ahold of me on email [email protected]
check your inbox
checked it … try again? [email protected]
I sure hope so. Maybe a security firm?
She’s cute, I’d accept her offer to COMMENT MODERATED all over my COMMENT MODERATED
ETA WHAT? I said CLIMB and TREEHOUSE
I am a woman who would like to have an opportunity to protect herself.’”
Very simple but strong statement. Her wanting not to be a victim by using the tool. That to me is true woman empowerment. If you work for any bank they should let you conceal carry.
Thank you T, great comment, appreciate it.
Isnt she essentially the go-to example for “common sense” restrictive places? In those last bastions of “may issue” madness being in business around large sums of money was like the only way for you to get a permit.
So we have a young woman working around large sums of money. Throw in a long poorly lighted walk to her car and it’s the absolute perfect exception for just about every carry prohibitionist save the most radical.
And it’s not good enough for Wells Fargo.
It’s as if Wells would rather she be robbed, beaten or worse. Good to know Wells Fargo supports the victimization of women.
Good to know Wells Fargo supports the victimization of women.
Having a wife that worked for a couple of different banks, I can say without a doubt that they all do.
Thank you Shire-man, you truly do get it. Have a nice week!
“It’s as if Wells would rather she be robbed, beaten or worse.”
I don’t see how it can see construed in any other reasonable manner. The bank would take up a collection for flowers for her funeral, though. As many as her fellow employees would want to pay for.
Sadly, my employer makes the entire company sign a “no guns allowed at work or parking lot agreement” — meaning, I cannot carry or keep it in the car either. I guess to their benefit, they actively patrol the parking lot and after 6pm if you are still working in the building, you can have a guard drive you to your car.
Your state does not have a law protecting the right to keep guns in cars, even on private property?
few do.
Wells Fargo is a private corporation and has the right to set the terms and conditions of employment. She signed a statement and then disregarded it. Your word should be your bond and she broke it. If she didn’t like the term and conditions of employment find another job. I have no sympathy.
Forfetting your right to protect yourself should not be in any employment contract.
shoulda, woulda, coulda doesn’t mean squat. If she doesn’t like the terms of her employment than find another job.
How about your other rights? Should she be able to wear a shirt that protests the bank bailout or is disparaging of a political party at work?
Their private business, their rules.
As a customer yes, as an employee no.
Thank you Steve in MD, I agree 🙂 Gods Speed 🙂
tdi – technically you are correct, and normally I’d agree, but having worked in the financial services business…
Let me just say that in that ecology, banks are at the bottom, and Wells Fargo had gone far astray from what they once were…on all sorts of levels, and we dont know all the facts here.
Just based on what we DO know, this is a perfect example of how they could have handled this much better, to their credit. PR fiasco at the very least.
And to be perfectly fair, if this young lady is a Branch Manager, who has a CCW permit, and has been carrying in her purse and holster for some time- then where has Corporate Security been all this time? Are you telling me her boss didnt know?
All of a sudden they find out and two days later- bam, she’s fired?
Due process? Common sense? Compassion towards a long-time employee in a position of trust with a family to feed?
I suspect theres more here than meets the eye.
I hope she’s got a good lawyer. I hope her lawyer calls the NRA and SAF for advice. Maybe on discovery process, like “how many senior managers at Wells Fargo, nationwide, have CCW permits?” “How many of those of the male variety have been fired lately?”
Who has the popcorn?
She wasn’t fired because she had CHL. She was fired for bringing her gun to work in violation of her terms of employment. The SAF is going to tell her that it’s not a Second Amendment case since it doesn’t involve government action.
tdi- thanks, I wasnt clear enough there- I’m just wondering if there are ways to find if there were other managers carrying in violation of the banks policy, and how they’d been treated. Sort of like that guy in New York, the mayors buddy who muzzled the crowd using his gun-laser as a pointer. What rules for thee and not for me kinda thing. Perhaps SAF is not the best source, but they might know a workplace discrimination litigation expert with 2A side interest, who would help out, if her lawyer needed it.
Thank you for your compassion, rlc2, have a great rest of your week!
You’re not keeping up with what private business is today.
So that entire – Constitutional Rights things is for sale (on demand/extorted)? Shall not be infringed?
You have apparently never learned what the constitution is about. One of its primary functions is to protect property rights. Private property and private transactions are outside the scope of the Constitutional protection. It has long been a Progressive goal to governmentalize private behavior so it can be regulated and controlled. if the Constitutions allows her to trump her employers private property rights, it also allows her to trump your property rights. So in what sense does private property exist under this scheme?
You have the choice not to be employed with a business. You can chose to sign or not sign on the dotted line. They also have a choice whether or not to hire you. If she gets to keep all her rights than the business should be able to fire her for no reason at all.
Blah blah blah. How contemptible.
No corporation can or should deny a person lawful self defense. If they refuse security then the corporation is complicit if anyone is hurt by a criminal.
This would be the best solution. Customers and employees should have automatic standing to sue if a business mandates a gun free zone without reasonable securing of the premises. The basic standard being metal detectors and/or a checkpoint at each entrance looking for weapons, like at federal buildings and courthouses. Alternatives would be having a big insurance policy and just automatically pay claims if the company wants to deny rights but refuses to provide a safe environment or just allow customers and employees their second amendment rights. This system would be fair for everyone. No one would be giving up rights without compensation.
The employer is not liable for the criminal misconduct of someone walking in off the street, nor does the employer have any sort of legal duty to provide security (any more than the government does). Can you imagine the cost of goods if every store had metal detectors and armed guards at the door? Moreover, any employee injured in the course and scope of his/her employment by whatever cause (except the employee’s voluntary intoxication) is entitled to workers’ compensation–and workers compensation is the employees’ (and heirs) SOLE legal remedy.
If the risk is small surely asking the employers to carry some sort of employee security insurance payable to the employee if deprived of their right to self defense? I find it odd that many employers carry life insurance payable to the EMPLOYER if something happens to the employee on the job. To cover the cost of having to replace a valuable employee I assume. Isn’t that interesting?
Mark, really good points that are making me rethink my position. Perhaps the solution is to ask employers with gun free policies to pay a little more into workers compensation because they are in a sense free riding? But then you would think insurance companies would already be charging those companies more. I bet insurance companies take the stand that gun free zones are safer and are incentivising companies to have gun free policies. Maybe this issue will correct itself as more and more people carry safely and responsibly and the sky does not fall and crime actually goes down. To bad about Ms. Ros, though.
THANK YOU.
Small consolation when you’re dead.
Where’s the ACLU?
1) She is very hot. And a MILF. Very nice
2) She will find another job quickly
3) Employers who ban employees from being able to protect themselves should have absolute liability for injuries suffered at work as a result. No workers comp limits and the damages awarded should be trebled. Problem will solve itself
She may not be Lara Croft, but I like the Sandra Bullock thing she’s working.
She may not currently be Lara Croft, but let me set her up with a personal trainer, wardrobe, hair and makeup. A little Botox for those lips and she’ll be close enough to Angelina…
What ever happened to ridding shotgun on the stage coaches? Trained employees not just guards should be armed if they choose to be.
Interestingly enough, on some of the WF logos you can still see that one of the stagecoachmen is carrying that trusty shotgun. I am also curious if WF Armored Car drivers are armed.
” I am also curious if WF Armored Car drivers are armed.”
😀 But of course they are! Sounds like a discrimination lawsuit to me.
A few thoughts on this one…
Of course she should be able to keep her gun, but Wells Fargo has the right to set workplace standards, even when they are stupid ones.
She says in unemployment filings that she didn’t read the employee handbook? Calling BS on that one. Every corporation the size of Well sFargo I’ve ever worked for makes you sign a paper saying that you’ve read and understand all workplace rules and regs, blah blah blah… Either she read it or she lied when she went through employee training.
Great job, Marketwatch, for getting the “Law Center for Preventing Gun Violence” and the author of “The Politics of Gun Control,” who denies the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, as informational sources. Hurray for balanced journalism.
“I am a single mom, I’m fairly attractive, sometimes I get unwanted advances. I just want to know that if I was ever up against any man — this isn’t about going out blazing, this is about being able to defend myself if I ever have to.”
*Good for you for desiring Sam Colt’s equality.
*’Fairly’ attractive? Don’t be modest…
*Speaking of unwanted advances, wanna see my Glock?
“… but Wells Fargo has the right to set workplace standards, even when they are stupid ones.”
NOT when those standards create a dangerous work environment.
For example a stamping company cannot have a workplace standard that says employees must immediately jump into a 4 ton hydraulic stamping press when there is a malfunction. This has actually happened in the past and employees have lost limbs and even died in such presses. We even have a government agency (OSHA) dedicated to preventing “stupid workplace standards”.
Criminals target banks and their employees all the time. I cannot think of a better example of a place where the employees work in a dangerous environment. We should never tolerate a workplace that actually increases the danger of a work environment.
I like the way you think. Very good!
Look, I agree that prohibiting personal defense weapons creates a more dangerous environment. But Wells Fargo sees it differently. It’s (superficially) reasonable to say that having firearms in the workplace creates more danger, and that’s what their corporate lawyers have advised them.
It’s going to be very difficult to prove that having guns is safer than not. To use your hydraulic press, you can point to the lost limbs and say, “Look at that, PressCo! You need to keep your employees out of the press!” But what do you point to in this case? Until Wells Fargo experiences an employee being harmed through not having the gun in the office, they’re going to say, “Well, if there are no guns, people can’t get shot!” We know the fallacy of that argument, but it’s their shop, and their rules.
As far as OSHA goes, do you really want to put the RKBA in the hands of governmental bureaucrats? The NRA and other pro-gun organizations have effectively bounced Dr. Vivek Murthy as the next Surgeon General because it was feared he would use the health care apparatus to effect firearms bans and confiscations. I can see it now…
“Hi, I’m from OSHA! Do you allow guns in your business? You DO? Well, that creates an unsafe work environment, and we’re going to fine you $5,000 a day until this unsafe situation is corrected! What? No, we’re not banning guns…”
“As far as OSHA goes, do you really want to put the RKBA in the hands of governmental bureaucrats?”
Um, no. That isn’t even remotely close to my point.
My point is that society (both employees and government) has stood up to corporations and said, “No, you cannot have stupid policies that imperil your employees.” I dare say this is a “self-evident truth” because both people and government have converged on it.
Everyone agrees that forcing an employee to jump into a 4 ton hydraulic press without specific measures to mechanically lock out the press is dangerous and wrong. However, forcing an employee to face armed attackers without the means to defend themselves is dangerous but right?
And here is the kicker. No one is arguing that we cannot have 4 ton hydraulic presses — inherently dangerous devices that have maimed and killed people — in businesses. Rather, people have demanded that business have safe policies for operating such presses. A concealed firearm on an employee is no different than that 4 ton press. Why is it forbidden when the hydraulic press is not?
+200,000. Okay, that was supposed to a 1, but who cares? If security guards and armored truck drivers can carry, why not her? The armored truck drivers are behind ARMOR! But not her!
Now why would this bank manager want to be armed at work as well as going to and from work? Criminals never rob banks. And they certainly never coerce bank employees into helping them rob banks. Oh, wait …
And women are never attacked walking to/from their car at work…
Her point is extremely poignant. She’s a target. Period. She wants to reduce that risk. Good on her.
And thus we see the real underbelly of all grabbers (political, legal and private citizens). They either deny the threats exist or deny that one individual life is worth fighting for. Or both.
Anyone else notice (in the original article) the pic of the gun? Is that HK the one she carries? So we’re not talking about someone who carries a Jennings or something? Someone who probably cares about the quality of her protection? Nice!
This really seems like a very simple issue. Namely, RTFM. If you don’t read the employee handbook you are a fool, because sooner or later you are very likely going to need something in there, ESPECIALLY in a right-to-work state. Right-to-work is a rather big misnomer, as it essentially means that employees can be fired for just about any reason at any time. The problem is that means your employer can fire you for parting your hair funny. Your only recourse is if you can prove that the firing was discriminatory, which is very difficult and even with solid evidence is often unsuccessful, or show that they violated their own policies. You’re never going to know if they did something wrong (at least until it’s too late to do anything about it) if you don’t read the handbook.
In addition, whether you like it or not, private entities (e.g. you and me) have the right to limit the terms of access to private property. Say I have a family member with a severe phobia of bicycles (yes, I know it’s absurd, that’s the point). I have the right to announce that bicycles are not allowed anywhere on my property, post accordingly, and charge individuals with trespassing if they violate that policy. Keep in mind of course that there are appreciable differences between residential and commercial (particularly consumer/retail commercial) property, but a private entity, on a fundamental level, still has the right to dictate the terms under which people come onto its property. Protesting is considered free speech, but that doesn’t mean you can do it on private property without the owner’s consent.
+1
You are correct. Currently, I think (I am not a lawyer) Ms. Ros has no standing and barring some weird penumbra ruling by the courts she will lose. However, legislation could be introduced to allow employees to carry, or make business step up security if they want to enforce a gun free zone. There is a lot legislation on the books that force property owners to accommodate people like the American Disability Act.
How many bank robberies have you had on your property? 10? 20? 50?
Bummer for her.
Their property, their rules.
Simple as that.
… says the always genuflecting sycophant.
How about your property, my rules. That works for me. How does it work for you.
Sounds like every HOA in existence.
As we discussed here recently, who has ownership and who has rights on a given piece of property can be two different things.
So, we’re playing by two sets of rules, it seems.
When you buy in a development with a HOA you agree to abide by their rules. HOAs are perfect examples of Libertarian governance.
One truly wonders.
I would say time to get a new bank but I don’t think any of the others are any different
You are correct about the large banks. They are not much different and they are not your friend. When TSHTF you can bet they will be the first to fold.
Chase has been doing things to limit ATM withdrawals which is the kind of early warning signal you want to be on the watch for-
like when Bank Paribas shut down the cashier window in 2007, which was bank-run trigger that exposed how the corporate cash market had dried up, which woke the public up to how the mortgage and CDO squared market was illiquid, and fake, that was the trigger for the meltdown that crushed Lehman, Countrywide, ML, and others.
If anything, we are more leveraged than ever, and its not just the US. China has shut the ATM window in the rural banks…hmmm…sound familiar? Remember how the Cyprus banks seized assets from larger account holders? Cuz the EU said so?
Look at a strong community bank or local credit unions that aren’t so leveraged and have solid paying assets. You can get rankings on financial security from Weiss, and some more info from NCUA. Dont keep all your eggs in one basket…
I wonder what else can be expected, when a bank can lend out $10 for every $1 they have on deposit?
There are many industries, certainly some that are gun neutral or gun friendly, who could benefit from Ros’ banking experience and expertise. Maybe this is an opportunity for her to expand her resume.
It’s certainly time to START a new bank where everyone can carry.
And not only a new bank. Lots of new companies should be started.
There should be at least one major, freedom-friendly enterprise in every American industry.
(Not that federal and state regs make any of this easy….)
Ros is ‘hot’ – in a very nice way – and I’m sure could give the real Angelina a run for the money at tomb raiding any ‘ol time.
Raiding tombs would certainly be more enticing and fun than…’banking’.
To answer a previous question, Wells Fargo armored truck drivers and guards are armed. I used to work for Dunbar Armored, and we were armed as well. After I was hired, the Dunbar guys wanted to wait until I had some undisclosed “training” before carrying, but I wouldn’t go out of the station until I was packing heat. I told them that I had all the training I needed from the Marine Corps in order to carry responsibly. I would gladly accept future training, but would find another job if they expected me to drive around millions of dollars in cash without a loaded gun. When we finally got range training – about 13 months later – I found that most of the guards couldn’t shoot for a bill of beans. Private companies do stupid things, and have ridiculous policies just like government agencies.
With her looks I’m a little surprised that she wasn’t able to get a work around of the CCW / No guns policy. I think Wells Fargo has a ridiculous policy, and that they should own liability for injuries to their employees who no longer have carry rights on private property. If I was a bank robber, unarmed tellers and the 75 year old security guard would be easy pickings.
I’m curious what more there is to the story. If CC is done properly, people shouldn’t know about your gun in the first place. Therefore a violation of company policy should have limited legal effect (probably a trespassing in most states).
A co-employee saw it in her purse and reported her, if I recall correctly.
Effing snitch culture. I despise it. You hear that, Paul?
Property rights are important too. Even though I’m a 2A supporter in every way, she certainly has the freedom to either go work someplace else or not bring her gun to work. She made a choice and paid the consequences. Let’s respect private property AND not bring stupid lawsuits when our own ignorance causes an issue. I’m a little surprised the courts even heard this.
p.s. Not guilty AND carries an HK? Bonus!
Respect private property? They don’t respect the lives of their employees.. how’s about some quid pro quo? Private property is not supposed to be king. JUSTICE is supposed to be king.
Maybe as gun rights are normalized in the public eye, big behemoth corporations like Wells Fargo will voluntarily accommodate employees who chose to responsible carry. Like at least offering secure lockers or gun safes on premises, etc. Not a big fan of legislation forcing business to accommodate special interests, but if the ADA makes business have handicap parking and wheelchair ramps, gun owners could demand some similar legislation.
Every bank employee should be armed.
And bank robbers should know it.
As it stands Wells Fargo is in the right to fire her however I wish a good leader would change things. Right now my wife works 3rd shift at a pharmacy that also has a policy of “get raped and killed like a good girl if the situation arises” and furthermore they leave the store in the hands of her and a 70ish year old female running the cash register.
Furthermore one night someone came in and jumped the counter and took a bunch of items and the store manager had the gall to ask, “Why didn’t you try and stop the large man from taking the items?”
My wife carries, she gets attacked she will lose her job and probably not collect unemployment which sucks but better to be intact and alive and not working than the other option.
Our leader has no problem forcing business to accept and do things they don’t want to do like make them offer medical things against THEIR beliefs such as the morning after pill, it would be nice to see a counter to that where an employee has to the right to protect themselves especially when they are a high target. Pharmacies have two things money and DRUGS….and they get knocked over all the time. Hey maybe we will find the CEOs of these companies who are against self defense also are getting kick backs and bribes.
She knowingly and willfully violated corporate policy, and she lost her job…time for her to move on and get another job, either one that she can carry at, or one that she decides to comply with corporate policies…
And yes, it’s just that simple…
Note to “Mina”
Like the bird of the same name, you make noise, but it is pointless.
Do you have any intelligent thoughts to offer about personal property rights?
Not really, no, I just like kicking you to see if you come crawling back for more.
you two need to get a room…:)
you need to email me!! [email protected]
😀 He will.
I’d raid her tomb.
(sp)
Just another oxi moron You can’t take a gun into the post office but you can take one in there to ship it.
Having worked in the commercial banking industry for about 40 years, I can testify that banking has the dumbest, most incompetent, most hide-bound, short-sighted, limp wristed, heads-up-asses upper and (especially) middle management of any industry. Seriously, most people would be shocked by how utterly inept these people are. They attend their sensitivity and diversity seminars, make sure they give to United Way and spend time “giving back to the community”, never taking a career risk and keeping a low profile until they have their 20 years in.
And Wells Fargo is considered to have some of the best management, so you can imagine what the others must be like….
The lewd and sexist remarks about the lady featured in this post are precisely the kind of comments TTAG does not need and the ammo our opponents use against us.
http://www.returnofkings.com/28129/the-white-knight-landing-page
Wow. Just wow. I hope when I’m 37 I look that good.
Anywho, I dislike Wells Fargo, I’ve had terrible experience with them and am thankful I no longer bank with them. As for this story, it never should have happened. By never should have happened I mean nobody should ever have known she had a firearm. If she’d maybe been more discreet then nobody would have known.
she’s prettier then laura croft
Video game(s) or movies? Because I’d agree with both…..
Thank you kind sir for the compliment, Gods Speed.
She also has some pretty good taste when it comes to firearms
Thank you 😉 I like it.
Mina once more demonstrates the vapidity of her debating skills by resorting to silly ad hominem.
What about my $1000?
Wells Fargo is clear about policy. She violated policy. She got fired. Next.
NEXT: Employee fired for expired inspection sticker.
I can’t be the only one noticing that the woman in question is ACTUALLY responding to comments can I?
I just don’t understand how they found out. Maybe they saw you handle it in your car through security cameras? Some astute observer saw it? I doubt you told a soul about it….
Very curious. I wish you all the luck with your case!
Very observant… and thank you for your kind words. I have no idea, I have always kept my gun concealed. I respect my gun and it makes me feel safer. Your theory is just as good a guess as mine;) Wish you well and thank you again for your support!
Ivette Ros
Wells Fargo: fined $175 million for unfair lending practices (charging higher rates to minority borrowers)
$42 million for neglecting the maintenance and marketing of foreclosed homes in black and latino neighborhoods
and $160 for laundering over $100 million in (OUCH! EXPENSIVE!) Mexican drug money.
AMONG OTHER THINGS.
This hits close to home.
I left my old job a few months back. Great boss, flexible hours, kept my gat on the desk in plain view. Small office.
New job. No firearms on premises policy.
Until they had to fire a guy a bit back. Then it was different.
I still leave it in the car.
I wish the young lady much luck. Personally, I can’t stand wells fargo.
Great taste in personal protection.
Yes, thank you kind sir and um, yea I closed out all of my accounts with them. Thanks again for your support.
Good night,
Ivette
I agree that she probably signed papers upon hiring that said she wouldn’t bring weapons to work, and unfortunately I agree it was their right to fire her. That said, I don’t agree with policies like that. If she has a permit and keeps it concealed I believe she should be allowed to have it with her. It’s just unfortunate she got caught. Speaking of which, I bet it was most likely an ugly jealous coworker that tipped her boss off so Ivette would be fired and the ugly coworker could finally have a chance with Tom in accounting. He’s so dreamy! Anyway, hopefully there’ll be a silver lining and Ivette will get a better job.
Note to Billy Burke: still smarting for being called out for posting under a fake name? Good.
LOL
“(Wells Fargo says) only the government, not a private employer, can be sued over alleged constitutional violations.”
Are these people kidding? Case law doesn’t support this and if the court rules in WF’s favor then it will be perfectly fine for businesses to discriminate against people because of their race, creed, color religion sex etc because its not the federal gov’t doing it.