Posted on 11/14/2004 4:58:38 PM PST by LouAvul
TULSA, Okla. — In Oklahoma, "Take Your Gun to Work Day" could be every day — but some employers are trying to change that.
Whirlpool Corp. (WHR) has sued to block a new law that allows employees to keep guns in their locked vehicles on workplace parking lots. The law was scheduled to take effect Nov. 1, according to the Associated Press, but a federal judge blocked it. Only Kentucky has a similar law.
Whirlpool, which is trying to save its ban on firearms (search) on company property, believes workplace safety should override the rights of gun owners.
"This is a standard company rule that's intended to protect employees ... and to minimize the risk of any incident occurring," Whirlpool said in a statement to FOX News.
Tulsa police are similarly concerned about the prospect of violence in the workplace.
.......snip..........
State Rep. Jerry Ellis (search), a Democrat, believes that keeping guns off employer property won't prevent workplace violence.
"People that are going to do violence in the workplace ... it doesn't make any difference how many laws that you have on the books. They have no respect for the law and they're going to do it anyway," Ellis told FOX News.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I agree. That makes it easier for gun owners to avoid working at or patronizing these employers.
If you ban guns on your property, and include your parking lots, you are in effect forbidding your employees from carrying anywhere on the days they work - including on their trips to and from work.
IMO, you should be able to forbid your employees from carrying on the premises. But if you do so, you should be required to provide secure storage for their firearms while they are on the premises.
One of the best things governments do is control the actions of businesses. That is to say, prevent their being as nasty as they want to be.
We agree.
Second, their property rights are being respected because this is not a law that allows them to carry into the building at work only the parking lot. If there is a private property rights issue it would arise from someone telling you what you can and can't keep in your own car. Many States have laws that treat parking lots that are private property but open to the public as public property in certain respects-- police ticketing handicapped parking violations for example.
This is an interesting perspective, but I remain unconvinced that parking lots are not private property. The fact that the government does not respect private property (by regulating parking lots in other ways) does not mean that parking lots are public property, any more than private wetlands are public property because the government unjustly tells the owners how that property can be used.
Without this law, people are required to travel to and from work unarmed. Just think about your own daughter leaving a remote workplace at midnight and the issue takes on a whole new light.
I would simply tell my daughter not to work for that dangerous employer, just as I would tell her to not work at a steel mill with a history of avoidable accidents. If she chose to ignore me, I'd have to respect her decision (assuming she is an adult).
So I guess I have the right to park my property on your front yard and camp out there overnight, just so long as I don't step off of my property and onto yours?
Don't matter none if'n he's a DEM. He's frum one uv them thar stoopid hillbilly red states(Okla). It don't count even if he is a Dem.
(Th only-est folk whut knows anythin' is all a livin' in them thar blue states)
</sarcasm>
My car does not become company property if I park it in the company parking lot.
Does the company assume all liability for any damages to my car in the lot?
My body does not become company property when I sit at my desk.
Can the company do with my body what they will, regardless of law, while I am at work?
Well to answer that question, yes but...the only employer with the legal right to suspend any and all constitutional protections to employees is the Federal government of the USA.
Is Maytag a branch of the Federal government?
I don't think so.
Yes. Remember, don't buy a Sears appliance. Most are made by Whirlpool under the Kenmore name. I worked for Sears for many years (regrettably).
The employer is "dangerous"?
BTW, Timm, how old are you, and what do you do for a living? We'd all like to know.
As in an A10?
Series, I've been TRYING to follow tim22's logic though this thread; but have found it is impossible. Sounds like a young liberal weasle who has never shot a weapon and lives in a totally isolated altruistic world on cloud-nine with a silver lining.
My children have more balls than this guy. They are both college graduates with karate black belts, have good jobs, no tattoos, piercings and straight!
Now on the other hand I think timm22 is on the flip side...
Your company can not do whatever they want with you. But they can set conditions you must meet in order to use their property or accept their salary.
For example, they can tell you what clothes you can wear (dress codes), what actions you must take (crunching numbers, making sales, etc), even what you can say and who you can associate with (sexual harassment policies).
If employers were trying to throw people in jail for keeping a weapon in their car, I would oppose them. If they want to set conditions for using their property or taking their money, I will support their right to do so, even if their conditions are stupid.
I'd hate to have Oklahoma State law or the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution get in the way of Whirlpool Corp's standard company rules!
Sounds like you never took Economics 101. Ever hear of Supply and Demand?
Depending on the workforce market, maybe NO ONE will be working there. Your ill-logic follows timm22.
I must have misunderstood you.
I thought you said you supported a company proclaiming what employees could have in their private cars on company paking lot property.
I have the answer, take a bus. /sarcasm
The flip side, eh? What's that supposed to mean?
I usually don't like to give out my age or profession, because I think it will be unfairly used to try to support or discredit my argument. I think if an argument is true, it doesn't matter who is giving it.
But I think I will make an exception in your case.
I am 23 years old, currently serving in the United States Army and preparing to deploy to Iraq. Prior to that I was in my last semester of school, which I voluntarily chose to suspend in order to take part in this deployment.
I guess I could be described as a liberal in the classical sense. I'll let you examine my posting history- longer than yours, I believe- to find out if the label fits. I've shot everything from BB's to a 120mm main gun, and my weapons of choice now are my M4 and the Ma Duece. I do have a tattoo (it says "MOLON LABE") and I'm straight as an arrow.
Now, can we discuss the issue like adults or do you want to insult me further?
You did not misunderstand me. I believe that an employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason they want, even stupid reasons, as long as the employee is not protected by a contract.
Xerxes should have listened, no?
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.