Posted on 07/23/2004 6:56:58 PM PDT by TYVets
America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees Utah High Court Rules Friday, July 23, 2004
Self-defense took a big blow this week when the Utah Supreme Court upheld the right of America Online (AOL), America`s largest on-line service provider, to fire three employees whose firearms were stored in the trunks of their cars in the parking lot of an AOL call center in Ogden, Utah.
In a decision that diminishes rights guaranteed under both the Utah and the U.S. Constitution, the court acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms, but said the right of a business to regulate its own property is more important!
Complying with this decision could potentially cost an employee his or her life--violent criminals certainly aren`t going to obey such a ban.
It may also diminish employees` abilities to hunt or target shoot after work.
The issue is becoming a hot legislative topic in the states. This year Oklahoma passed HB 2122 ensuring that employees with guns in their cars were not fired or harassed, and it was debated in several other states.
Please look to future editions of the Grassroots Alert for developing information on this issue.
I do remember a case where an employer made industrial batteries. Women were having children with birth defects which was shown to be from working around the battery plant. The employer then transfered all the women to desk jobs. The women filed a sex discrimiantion lawsuit and won. So the employer made the women sign a liability waiver saying they understood the possibility of working in the battery plant leading to birth defects in children. The women signed them. Nonetheless, when the women begin having children with birth defects, they sued the employer for damages and, again, won in court.
So the employer was essentially screwed. He couldn't prevent the women from working there, couldn't prevent them from getting pregnant and couldn't prevent them from suing *him* when the children came out with birth defects even though he made the facts known to the women and had them sign a liability waiver.
I imagine he went out of business or moved out of the country .
Suppose the gov't passed laws that made it possible for AOL to buy up every other company in the US for pennies on the dollar. Then AOL could ban guns everywhere! And that would be fine for some folk
good point
This case involves guns taken out of the trunk at lunch. They were seen by other employees. Otherwise there is no way they could have known.
A policy such as this one is a less eggregious 'signing away of rights' than certain types of non-compete agreements, etc. Indeed, what would be interesting would be to see what would happen in a situation where both types of items were in play. I think an employee might be able to make a case that while the company couldn't be forced to keep him on payroll, it could not simultaneously refuse to keep him on payroll and forbid him from working elsewhere. I don't know how that would play out.
That's true, but do we really want the government deciding whether a policy is 'reasonable'?
Who else? We have a court system to protect our individual rights.
Since there is nothing forcing people to work for AOL, shouldn't we leave it up to them to decide whether the policy is reasonable or worth putting up with to keep their jobs? It's not like AOL is doing anything worse that firing them anyway.
AOL is trying to do much worse. It's trying to infringe on a basic individual right by using its power to hire & fire. Why? Ask yourself the reason. There is none. Their actions are arbitrary & unreasonable. Having a gun in your car is none of AOL's business.
Generally, the libertarian position is that an employer should be able to hire and fire as it pleases, even without a policy violation.
Sorry, I don't agree that unreasonable restrictions can be made on my basic freedoms, just because I've contracted to work for someone. My rights to self defense trump an employers power to arbitrarily dictate behavior.
This was cosmically stupid by AOL.
They have far too much competition for their advertising ladden second rate service.
Many employers act in ways that are arbitrary and unreasonable. Any employee who finds the employer's actions objectionable has the right to seek employment elsewhere. The only tricky issue I can see is if the employee has signed a non-compete agreement. In that case, I would think an employer should be forbidden from exercising such arbitrary authority unless it decides to dissolve the agreement, which it should be in its power to do.
Trial lawyers are indeed the problem. I don't think the company made any pro-active moves to ensure that nobody had firearms in their trunk, nor could a lawyer very well argue that they should [the likelihood of a mass-walkout by people annoyed at having their cars searched would so far outweigh the possible good such searches could do that nobody could reasonably argue for mass searches]. Unfortunately, by moving the firearms from one vehicle to another on company propertyin an area which was observed by security cameras, they inadvertantly broght the issue to the company's attention. While companies can usually safely ignore things they don't know about, it's much harder for them to ignore things they do (thanks again to the [bleep]ing trial lawyers).
I'm no fan of AOL by any stretch, but I'd suggest that it is trial lawyers as much as anything who are to blame for company behavior.
[BTW, perhaps some legislation might be helpful positing that the mere act of a company's allowing employees to lawfully possess firearms shall not make the company liable for any actions the employee performs with such firearms unless the company
Since there is nothing forcing people to work for AOL, shouldn't we leave it up to them to decide whether the policy is reasonable or worth putting up with to keep their jobs? It's not like AOL is doing anything worse that firing them anyway.
AOL is trying to do much worse. It's trying to infringe on a basic individual right by using its power to hire & fire.
Why? Ask yourself the reason. There is none.
Their actions are arbitrary & unreasonable. Having a gun in your car is none of AOL's business.
Supercat replies :
Many employers act in ways that are arbitrary and unreasonable. Any employee who finds the employer's actions objectionable has the right to seek employment elsewhere.
Of course he does. -- But as in the case at hand, the fired employees also had the right to seek redress, and if possible, to stop employers from making such arbitrary 'rules' in the future.
It is against all of our constitutional principles to infringe upon our RKBA's, -- regardless of the organizations supposed 'reasons' for doing so.
The only tricky issue I can see is if the employee has signed a non-compete agreement. In that case, I would think an employer should be forbidden from exercising such arbitrary authority unless it decides to dissolve the agreement, which it should be in its power to do.
Look at it this way. - We could all agree that it would be unconstitutional of AOL to require potential employees to rid themselves of ~all~ weapons before being hired, -- correct?
-- Why then is it OK for them to forbid weapons secured in personal vehicles in a company parking lot? the bearing of arms [in a car trunk] is a basic right.
In effect, by doing so they are requiring employees to disarm themselves for far more than just the work related part of their life. This company policy is directly contrary to our constitutional policy on the bearing of arms. It is an infringement.
Only to the extent that AOL tried to prevent the person from seeking work elsewhere. If a private employer decided to inform his employees that they must attend weekly religious services with him, and that refusal to attend such services would be grounds for dismissal, he'd be within his rights to do so. I wouldn't work for such an employer, but if somebody was comfortable doing so, I'd not forbid such a requirement. As for a corporate employer, I suspect shareholders would probably object if a manager tried to enforce such rules, but if the manager were somehow to convince shareholders that such a rule would benefit them, I again would see nothing unconstitutional about it.
Why then is it OK for them to forbid weapons secured in personal vehicles in a company parking lot? the bearing of arms [in a car trunk] is a basic right.
The weapons were, for a time, not secured in vehicles; from what I've read elsewhere, they were moved from one vehicle to another while on company property. Had the weapons been kept in locked trunks for as long as they were 'over' company property, I don't think there would have been an issue here.
In effect, by doing so they are requiring employees to disarm themselves for far more than just the work related part of their life. This company policy is directly contrary to our constitutional policy on the bearing of arms. It is an infringement.
From what I've been told, there are companies where employees are told what sorts of vehicles they're allowed to have in the company parking lot. Anyone without such a vehicle is required to park their car off company property and walk to work. While I would likely not want to work for such a company even if my car met their standards (somehow I don't think a '99 compact would) I would think the employer was within their rights to enforce such a policy.
Unfortunately, the government has gotten sufficiently involved in employment matters that things get a bit complicated. For example, one of the conditions of receiving unemployment compensation is that one accept a job if one is offered. I can see many tricky issues if a person is offered a job which would require subscribing to a code of conduct they cannot accept. To give people unbridled freedom to reject such offers without losing unemployment compensation would be to seriously weaken the requirements that people be actually seeking work. On the other hand, to make refusal to accept such an offer grounds for discontinuing unemployment benefits would be to give the prospective employer undue coercive power.
I don't know what the best solution is, except to note that many corporations' no-guns-on-company-property rules are a result of trial lawyers, and the blame should be put where it belongs.
You just said in one paragraph what I've been trying to convey this entire thread! Very well stated.
It's not the company's private property. It's rented spaces in a public parking lot.
And companies do not have rights under the Constitution, people do.
So what you are saying is that rights are collective. Who has rights, and when they have them should be decided by a majority. And when a person enters one of these "your rights stop here" zones, owned by a collective majority, they cease to be protected by the Bill of Rights.
Just trying to clarify your point.
At least ONE sane FReeper. Thank you God, there is hope! :-)
And all gun laws today infringe on that right!!!!! The Bill of Rights doesn't say that I have a right to bear arms with the exception of..........
You do have a fundamental right to own any firearm you legitimately acquire, granted. You do not have a fundamental right to employment by any person or company who, for whatever reason, does not want you as an employee. If a company were to forbid firearm ownership by all employees and you decided that you'd rather work at that company than own a gun, you would have the right to make such a decision. In so doing, however, you would not be giving up your right to own a gun since you would remain free to, any time you decided you wanted a gun, submit your walking papers, go to an FFL, and buy one.
If an employee or anyone else wants to harm someone at work they either will plan in advance and disobey the rules or leave and come back later with a weapon. It seems to me that just obeying current laws would give as much protection as possible. Anyone wanting to kill someone isn't going to be worried about any other law either.
"If a company were to forbid firearm ownership by all employees..."
then they are a corporation exceeding it's charter and in blatant violation of the law. Their right to function as a business, requires them to NOT violate the rights of their employees.
Perhaps you don't feel an employee has a right to self defense in a dark parking lot at night. The founders would disagree.
take these corporate criminals, and lockem up, and throw away the key.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.