Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
By the way...when you are traveling to work you can stop and have a few beers and nothing happens to you, when you arrive at work drunk, you get fired.
When you're traveling home from work, you can stop and have a few beers, and your job will not be impacted...unless of course you get arrested, and can't make it to work the following day, in which case you get fired.
Is that a Constitutional issue too?
No.
It is about trespassing.
Try remaining on my property after I've asked you to leave it because I see that you're carrying a weapon, and rest your argument on your Constitutional rights.
Let's see which one of use lands in jail after I've forcefully thrown you off my property, and let's see which one of us is either jailed or fined as a result of the incident.
And if you shoot me, you will be charged with a crime, and I will not.
Now wait a minute...it isn't illegal for you to drink, so why would it be legal for an employer to fire for drinking OFF the job?
Could it possibly be because the employer has the right to set workplace rules?
By your logic you should be allowed to sue a business anytime you walk through a metal detector. The Oak. law will be struck down since it is laughable.
Dear Mulder,
"Right-to-work" is different from "at-will" employment.
"Right-to-work," as you point out, is about the status of unions and closed shops.
"At-will" employment means that your employer can fire you "at-will" for any reason at any time. And you can quit your job "at-will" for any reason at any time.
"At-will" employment is conditioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and similar and related legislation, and by various state laws and judicial precedents.
Generally, exceptions to at-will doctrine are made at the federal level for race, religion, color, gender, and national origin. Also, there are certain limited exceptions made for dismissals that would violate "public policy." As an example, you can't fire someone because they refuse to commit a felony.
But in most states, you CAN fire people because: you don't like 'em; you disagree with their politics; they are homosexual (although a growing number of states forbid that); they refuse to follow work rules that don't impinge on the five protected categories mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the pregnancy protection law.
In any event, if an employer creates a rule barring possession of widgets on its property, properly informs all workers of the rule, and provides a clear process of discipline for violating that rule, even where employment at-will is weakest, the employer will generally be upheld. It doesn't matter whether "widgets" are guns or garbage cans, employers have a right to determine what will come on to their property and what will stay off their property.
Issues of enforcement get trickier.
sitetest
Employers have always had the right to set workplace rules that do not infringe on employees Constitutional rights.
Some employers have the right to fire you depending upon your behavior off the job, such as smoking and driving habits.
Excellent post. While I do come down on the side of the property owners rights, these policies don't just affect employees while they are on company property. It affects their safety during much of the day.
Also, there are certain limited exceptions made for dismissals that would violate "public policy."
sitetest 248
One wonders how many of these job site murders would take place if the perpetrators knew that other workers were armed. I am thinking fewer.
Another part of this story that bothers me is that it says the gun was found behind the workers seat in his car, why were they searching his car in the first place?
And if the company bans me from having a lawfully carried gun in my vehicle, does that mean they are responsible for my safety to and from work? Are they saying I do not have the right to protect myself during my drive to and from work? If I worked at a company with such a policy, and something happened to me where I was injured in any way where having a gun would have prevented it, I would be suing that company to the nth degree.
BOOTSTICK wrote:
Some employers have the right to fire you depending upon your behavior off the job, such as smoking and driving habits.
You have every right to be armed to and from work. As soon as you pass onto private property your right to be armed ends, so have a friend/ spouse drive you to work and pass the weapon off to him/her before entering the company property.
No. Just your blankey and a nice muffin.
I demand the right to work my job in jail.
And to have beers.
And dancing girls.
Dear jonestown,
"It violates the public policy of the US to infringe on our RKBA's."
Not according to federal law.
sitetest
Dear jimthewiz,
"Private property rights do not relieve the owner of PC (probable cause) before searching."
If the employer is a private employer, and the employee signs an agreement to submit to random searches, the employer may search without probably cause.
Probably cause is required of the government in order to obtain a search warrant. It doesn't really enter into relations between individuals.
sitetest
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.