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.
Could you please qualify this statement?