Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
Modernman wrote:
I have never seen a requirement that an employer provide parking for its employees ----
My firearms stay in my car. If I so much as stick one out the window while parked in their parking lot I have violated their property Rights. But not until.
Get it? Or does your hatred of firearms blind you to so simple a fact?
Yes... they do. I'm not arguing that at all. My company not only sends out a copy of all policy changes, but solicits feedback. It also requires that major policy changes, like those regarding firearms, be SIGNED by the employee and added to your file.
Liability insofar as the Oklahoma legislature is removing Weyerhauser's right to set whatever policy they deem the most appropriate in order to protect their employees from work place gun related violence.
The legislature has effectively voided their ability to make a choice, but if a work place related shooting takes place, Weyerhauser is still financially, legally, and perhaps even criminally accountable to the victims of the shooting for a shooting that could arguably have been avoided.
In other words, if I'm not allowed BY LAW to do whatever I believe I need to do in order to stop you from jumping off the roof of my house and into my pool, why should I be liable for your injuries if you do it and get hurt?
I hate guns?
I OWN guns!
I think we've got around 20,000 in the US, Germany, and China. I brokered the deal based off of similar policies with other employers in the area.
Major policy changes here require a signed copy be kept with the employees record. This negates the "but I didn't know" factor. Hopefully, we'll get more details on this. Sounds like a try and korporate kommunism though...
Why is that?
I would argue that distribution of the new policy coupled with his continued use of the company parking lot is tacit agreement
nittany
jonestown:
"Most large employers are required to provide parking spots to their employees as a condition of doing business."
Agreed.
I think we've got around 20,000 in the US, Germany, and China. I brokered the deal based off of similar policies with other employers in the area.
I'm impressed. It's surprising that a company so large allows tailored policy agreements with their employees. My company is a bit bigger (50-60K), and they'd never go for something like that.
Hopefully, we'll get more details on this. Sounds like a try and korporate kommunism though...
I agree. I hate what the company's trying to do here as well.
I'm not arguing for it at all; it's a stupid and counterproductive policy. But for better or worse, the freedoms we enjoy allow all sorts of stupidity.
How does this type of 'policy' serve the Constitution?
It doesn't. It serves the property owner's whim, which is all that's required. Contrary to your false assertion upthread, private companies are not required to serve the Constitution in order to conduct commerce in the US.
Then show me the world as it is...if companies are required by law to provide parking FOR THEIR EMPOYEES, then it should be rather easy to show me the law that says that.
Thus far, you have refused to.
I am?
Then you are seeing pink, and that's YOUR problem.
I believe that the company's property rights prevail in this issue.
So the companies property Rights not only supercede MY property Rights, but also my Second Amendment Rights? What other Rights of mine can a company take away without due process?
"Where is the safety in banning guns in the workplace?
How many gun related crimes are committed by employees in police stations, gun shops and other places of employment where practically every employee is armed?"
Good point. I don't think very many start shooting in police stations or the like because they know what they are up against and choose instead to mess with places where they can do their dirty work and then leave unharmed.
Why argue for a "No Firearms in your cars policy"?
How does this type of 'policy' serve the Constitution?
jones
"You can make searching his car be a condition of his parking on your driveway. He can always refuse and park elsewhere, of course."
If someone told me that I would leave, my car is my property. Period.
One of the reasons the Constituiton was created was to have a fed gov protect the rights of market players involved in interstate commerce. That was to maintain fairness in the marketplace. The 14th amend. extended their jurisdiction to State and local govm'ts and to any parties violating fed recognized rights.
In this case the concerns of the employer are not the workplace and workplace safety, because the guns are locked in the car, out of the sphere of the workplace, and the employer(s) deliberately linked them with, employee mental stability and illegal drugs. The employers intend to infringe on the right of their employees to maintain and keep private their property contained within their vehicles. The right of the employer to determine what is in the parking lot ends at the vehicles body.
The employee is the property owner being deprived of his property, privacy and liberty, by the employer's slander and libel campaign and attempt to extend his property boundary into the employees property right.
This law was written by our local congressman because of a couple of incidences here in S.E. Oklahoma. The Weyerhauser company did a surprise drug check on the employees vehicles in the parking lot (on company property). The dog hit on a pickup truck. When it was searched, they did not find drugs, they did find wintergreen chewing tobacco which the dog was convinced was drugs. However, they also found an unloaded rifle behind the seat. The employee was fired. Then, a couple of weeks later, they did a surprise search of every vehicle on the lot. Several of them had guns in them. All of the employees with guns in their vehicles were fired. Most of them had been with the company SEVERAL years. They anounced that they would conduct random searched daily. All hell broke loose & the employees started parking along side the highway in the bar ditch (off company property) in protest. The law, as written, would allow employees fired for having a gun in their vehicle to sue to get their job back & back pay. James
Although it's just an anonymous poster, it sounds as though employees are exercising the right to park off-property.
It is obvious that in most localities companies are required by law to provide parking "FOR THEIR EMPOYEES" as a condition of doing business.
I have no obligation to 'show you' the obvious.
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.