Comlink Client Firearms Declaration

[Wm.Traynor]

From time to time, when my wife is unavailable, I am obliged to seek alternate transport, to medical appointments. Consequently I became a client of Comlink, which now requires me to sign a Declaration, part 4 of which I take issue.

Quote, part 4
"Any Comlink staff member who feels unsafe due to the presence of, threats regarding, or exposure to, firearms(including associated ammunition), will be supported to exit the property immediately and to report concerns to their manager."

In the absence of legal advice, I would appreciate the thoughts of members of the forum.

[Zach]

What's the problem? Just don't pull your guns out of the safe when the service worker picks you up and they won't even know you own a firearm.

[womble]

N/A
Not applicable

You're not the staff member .

I'd put that in the margin just sneakily

But I'm not advising this.

You should probably just ignore it.

It's dumb but some weirdo put it in there and you need the service.

Super weird though. A clause that doesn't allow for their employees to be taken hostage.
I doubt any self respecting terrorist would honour it.
Kinda defeats the purpose of your hijack or whatever.

[No1_49er]

Quote, part 4
"Any Comlink staff member who feels unsafe due to the presence of, threats regarding, or exposure to, firearms(including associated ammunition), will be supported to exit the property immediately and to report concerns to their manager."

In the absence of legal advice, I would appreciate the thoughts of members of the forum.

Seriously??
You have thought about what Part 4 says, haven't you?

During which part of the Comlink service are you exposing the staff member to a firearm and/or ammunition?

Suggest you go back and read (and maybe) understand exactly what has been written (by some numptie)

[bladeracer]

From time to time, when my wife is unavailable, I am obliged to seek alternate transport, to medical appointments. Consequently I became a client of Comlink, which now requires me to sign a Declaration, part 4 of which I take issue.

Quote, part 4
"Any Comlink staff member who feels unsafe due to the presence of, threats regarding, or exposure to, firearms(including associated ammunition), will be supported to exit the property immediately and to report concerns to their manager."

In the absence of legal advice, I would appreciate the thoughts of members of the forum.

It reads more like it's part of the requirements the employee has to abide by and nothing to do with the client. If they feel there is a threat then they must leave the property and report it. I don't see that it has anything to do with the client at all. Modern numpties could perceive a threat from firearms even if no firearms exist. I can't fathom precisely what "exposure" to firearms or ammunition might refer to. Sounds like it was written by a University graduate that knows everything about nothing. Would a cabinet full of shooting trophies be an issue? I'm surprised they don't have a clause now allowing them to run away if the client has an Australian flag.

[womble]

Yep. Reads like a clause in employee’s contract.

[Wm.Traynor]

Thank you all for your contributions. At present, I am inclined to follow womble's advice and ignore it, at least until they have something to say about being ignored.
So far, the Clause seems rather loosely worded.. Not only that, I am wondering if I am to be held responsible for a stranger's feelings regarding "...exposure to firearms/associated ammunition...." The obvious thing for Comlink to do, IMO, would be to tell their employee that they will be dealing with a shooter. Then, it should be up to that employee to attend or otherwise. What exactly is meant by the phrase, "...exposure to..."?

[jezzab]

"... exposure to..."

eg Cleaning your shotgun when they turn up or they can see your firearms.

[womble]

Selective ignorance is bliss.

[Wapiti]

My Dad mentioned something like this when he read all the info on the expectations of Mum and dad's homecare packages.
Having illegal or alarming items on display, or anything a visitor may take as threatening or dangerous was to be addressed before these people came into your home.
Plenty of you would be familiar with these people helping oldies stay in their homes longer. Helping with cleaning, washing, checking everything is safe and working.

Pretty easy, lock guns away in the safe where they are supposed to be by law anyway. I cannot see the big deal here.
Not my scene, but put away swords, hunting knives, whatever.
On the downside, why also have stuff laying around that could just trigger an afterhours visit by crims later? Who knows nowadays?
Take a step back and look around, what is here that could alarm someone who has been socially engineered by the germs you've all put into government, and the media you support just be continuing to watch it.

You mightn't agree with it, or even understand it, but that's the way it is.
It's actually really simple, so nothing to worry about. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

[bladeracer]

Sounds like one-way tolerance.
Whatever somebody has chosen to surround themselves with to make _their_ home theirs should not be taken away from them just to make some outsider "feel" safe. How about a bit more tolerance from these people that claim to be wanting to help somebody stay in their own home rather than have to go into care. If your client has to hide away his things that make him happy to still be living in his own space are you sure you're actually helping him?

My daughter worked in one-on-one care for "disabled" people, and what a huge rort that industry is. Some obnoxious teenager that refuses to make any attempt to fit into society under the guise of various "mental illnesses" and whose parents claim that "they can't cope with him" gets put into his own rental property and $600,000 per year spent keeping 24/7 attendance by "carers" on minimum wage who are physically attacked all the time with anything at hand, including furniture...all while the parents are living it up not having to deal with their kid anymore - all done with our tax money. And the company will not support any claims by the employees about being injured, they just move them to another job and bring in some other unknowing victim to be attacked, rather than upset the golden goose. I'm so glad she got out of that mess.

The clause the OP posted reads like it comes from one of the contracts my daughter had to sign, written by somebody straight out of school with no clue about contract writing.

My Dad mentioned something like this when he read all the info on the expectations of Mum and dad's homecare packages.
Having illegal or alarming items on display, or anything a visitor may take as threatening or dangerous was to be addressed before these people came into your home.
Plenty of you would be familiar with these people helping oldies stay in their homes longer. Helping with cleaning, washing, checking everything is safe and working.

Pretty easy, lock guns away in the safe where they are supposed to be by law anyway. I cannot see the big deal here.
Not my scene, but put away swords, hunting knives, whatever.
On the downside, why also have stuff laying around that could just trigger an afterhours visit by crims later? Who knows nowadays?
Take a step back and look around, what is here that could alarm someone who has been socially engineered by the germs you've all put into government, and the media you support just be continuing to watch it.

You mightn't agree with it, or even understand it, but that's the way it is.
It's actually really simple, so nothing to worry about. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.

[Wapiti]

Sounds like one-way tolerance.

Yes it sure is, but if you don't play the game, you won't be in it.
Never said I agree with it.
While it's like it is, to get the service, the service is basically "demanding" the guidelines.
Which mostly are the laws that gun owners particularly, have signed off that they are going to abide by to participate.
Lock away guns and ammo from others.
Until it's fixed, which I don't think it ever will be, because people will complain about this slow march into totalitarianism but won't lift a finger to change it.

[alexjones]

It would be part of their workplace health and safety to cover their ass. I work in mining and they tell us all the time we can stop the job at any moment if we feel unsafe.

[bladeracer]

It would be part of their workplace health and safety to cover their ass. I work in mining and they tell us all the time we can stop the job at any moment if we feel unsafe.

Sure, but why does it need to be on a document the client is signing? That safety stuff is between the employee and their employer, it's nothing to do with the client.

[alexjones]

I would assume that you are agreeing to the terms and if someone leaves abruptly you would know why.

Basically it means that for whatever reason they can leave. It is such a rather broad statement.

[Zach]

Alexjones has it spot on. It is simply stating that the employee is within their rights to leave the premises if they feel threatened (as silly as being scared of the mere presence of a firearm in the property is) and by signing it you acknowledge that the worker has this right.

It does not impose a single expectation or responsibility on the signee, it just puts into writing that you understand they have a right to refuse service under certain circumstances.

[womble]

Or maybe he shot his last carer.

[Wm.Traynor]

Or maybe he shot his last carer.

lol

[womble]

We know you wouldn’t do that.

[Wm.Traynor]

We know you wouldn’t do that.