Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
On someone else's property, they do.
By the way, when can I come exercise my First Amendment rights in your front yard? I notice you conveniently dropped that subject.
Contrary to your false assertion that I made a "false assertion" upthread: --- private companies are required to obey Constitutional law in order to conduct business in the US.
Yet countless other companies have similar policies in effect - and are continuing to do business in the US. If your assertion was fact, the OK legislature would've simply shut down Weyerhauser instead of passing this law, no?
Thounsands of companies are proving you wrong everday. The fact that you refuse to admit it, doesn't change the truth of my statement.
That's right. The employees though have economic concerns to deal with. That's why this back door gun grab by the companies involved takes the form of extortion. The companies both deamonize the gun owners and infringe on their rights, because the guns are used elsewhere, do not appear in the workplace and are kept private and unseen.
This is not completely true.
Worker's compensation court decisions in several states have found in favor of the employee being injured on the way to or from work.
When you go to court, anything can happen.
Other than very rare situations (such as a government installation), you're probably correct: the property owner can't force you to submit to a search, all they can do is deny you access to their property or kick you off their property.
However, if you consent to being searched as part of the conditions of employment, your employer can fire you for refusing to consent to a search. Generally speaking, your employer can demand that you consent to a search on the spot, even if no previous rule existed to that effect. If you refuse, he can fire you.
The locals required the company to provide parking, because of the obvious reasons. If you're going to operate a buisiness that requires folks to travel to it, then you need to provide for parking.
jonestown-to-English Translation: I was making it up; I have no evidence.
Wrong, 18USC241 forbids it. He can not extort someone to surrender their rights. He is limited to firing them w/o cause, or just make some bogus statement.
Following your rationale, any situation where the parties involved have uneven bargaining power would amount to extortion.
Extortion involves the illegal extraction of money, property or privileges from another. There is nothing illegal about requiring your employees to abide by certain rules in order to keep receiving their paychecks.
You keep using the word "extortion." I don't think it means what you think it means.
He is limited to firing them w/o cause, or just make some bogus statement.
That statement totally undermines your position. So, the employer can fire you for consenting to a search so long as he doesn't tell you that is why he is firing you?
Hmmm...interesting take. It seems to me that, if an employee consented to the search as part of the terms of employment, then no deprivation is occurring.
I also wonder about applying the interstate commerce clause to this issue, but that's simply because I think it's abused in many circumstances. Perhaps that's for another thread.
That said, I'm open to persuasion WRT the 14th. I think I understand it in general terms, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can you provide a link to a good source?
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.
I understood the policy to be in part because guns in a locked car are readily retrievable and can be brought back into the building. So in that respect it may be about employee safety (or at least couched that way). As to this company's true underlying motivations, you may be right.
My suspicion is that this is motivated by lawyers afraid of a lawsuit.
The Employer has the right to set conditions of employment and access to property. The Employee can agree to these conditions or can find another job. The Employers rights are not violated since they can terminate the employ of the employee if the employee choses not to comply with the conditions of employment, and the employees rights are not infringed upon, since the employee is not forced to work for the company and can offer his services elsewhere. Neither party is forced into any contractual obligation of employment, it is mutually agreed to and such agreement if entered into can be terminated by either party.
Dear jonestown,
"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've owned my own businesses since 1985. In that time, I've rented offices in about eight different places in different jurisdictions throughout the Washington region. This is what I've found throughout the Washington, DC area, in urban, suburban, and even semi-rural settings:
Most zoning laws require that when an office building is constructed, the builder must provide a certain number of off-street parking spaces for the amount of square footage of office space. In suburban areas, usually the amount of parking is greater, because the land is cheaper. In urban areas, the number of spaces is quite small, because land is too expensive.
Thus, in a suburban setting, it may be necessary to provide 1 off-street spot for every 400 sq ft of office space that is built. I once rented office space in a downtown area where it was 1 space per 1000 sq feet. I have a client in a downtown Washington, DC building where the ratio is beyond that.
No one, not the builder, not the employer is "required" to provide any parking spaces for any specific employees. In fact, they couldn't. In my own building, the ratio is about one space per 300 - 400 sq ft. But I use office space at a ratio of about 1 person to every 150 sq ft.
Thus, if every business in my building used space in an equivalent manner, there wouldn't be enough spots in the parking lot if everyone drove to work. Folks would have to park on the street outside our lot.
The government does not require me by law to provide parking for my employees. In fact, I could forbid employees from parking in the lot if I wished to save the spots for customers. We don't have customers come to our site, but if we did, I could do so.
I have never rented office space where the government ever required me by law ever to provide parking to any employees at all. The building was required to have a certain number of spaces, but there were no requirements at all to permit workers to park in them.
None of my downtown Washington, DC clients is obligated to provide parking for any of their employees at all. In fact, downtown, usually only the principals of private companies, the heads of non-profits, and very senior folks in government agencies are guaranteed parking.
No employer, no building owner in the Washington region is required to provide parking specifically for employees.
In fact, just the opposite is true in this region. Several local jurisdictions have programs to discourage individual commuters, and to encourage mass-transit and car-pooling. To that effect, zoning in certain places is changing to RESTRICT the number of parking places provided by the builders of buildings.
Even further, even if an employer were obligated to provide parking for employees, that doesn't mean that the employee must use that parking. The employee could take mass transit, could be driven by a spouse who dropped him or her off at the gate.
And of course, because of the 13th Amendment banning slavery, it is illegal for the employer to force the employee to work for his company, thus the employee is always free to refrain from working for the employer at all.
Thus, at no time is any private citizen ever forced to park their vehicle on the property of the employer. Ever.
As a result, entry onto the employer's property is entirely voluntary, and that being the case, the employer may rightfully impose whatever rules or restrictions he may like, excepting submission to physical assault or similar.
sitetest
No. This case involves property and sphere of the workplace boundaries. The employer is attempting to exceed his rights and usurp those of his employees. The example of the "friendly visit" proves the heinousness of the infringement. The economic concerns in combination with the usurpation of the employees rights, make the employer's uneven bargaining power extortion.
Organized crime pulls the same thing. The offer a protection service. The shop owner "agrees", because otherwise some vandal will torch his shop.
" Extortion involves the illegal extraction of money, property or privileges from another."
Surely your omission of "right" was simply an oversight.
"There is nothing illegal about requiring your employees to abide by certain rules in order to keep receiving their paychecks."
The rules are limited to the workplace, or they are not valid. In this case the extension of demand outside the sphere of the workplace and the employer's right IS extortion.
THat doesn't make sense. Once the employer mounts the extortion demand, the firing is connected. WIthout the extortion demand being made, all the employer can do is fire folks at random.
The economic concern makes it an extortion of employee rights per 18USC241.
" I understood the policy to be in part because guns in a locked car are readily retrievable "
They're just as retrievable as any kept at home, or in vehicles parked outside the gate. Criminals have already demonstrated that. Normal folks(gun owners) have already demonstated beyond a reasonable doubt, that they don't consider shooting folks at work valid, and don't do it either.
Employers are not responsible for the criminal acts of their employees. Seems they have plenty of money to pursue court battles and propaganda campaigns that amount to a back door gun grab.
That seems like a bit of a stretch. IMHO you can't extort someone out of earning your own money.
They're just as retrievable as any kept at home, or in vehicles parked outside the gate. Criminals have already demonstrated that. Normal folks(gun owners) have already demonstated beyond a reasonable doubt, that they don't consider shooting folks at work valid, and don't do it either.
I would agree. That said, I suspect some would make the analogy to a waiting period; by the time you get home and retrieve the gun you've had time to cool down. (I don't agree with waiting periods either.)
We have lawyers trying to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal acts of their customers. I have no doubt a workplace shooting would result in a lawsuit against the employer for failing to provide a safe work environment.
"Generally speaking, your employer can demand that you consent to a search on the spot, even if no previous rule existed to that effect. If you refuse, he can fire you."
Or I can park elsewhere. My boss expects me to be armed, he might fire me if I refused to carry my gun...hahaha!
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.