Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
I have never said nor implied that.
Playing the 'dozens' has no rules.
You want originality? Post some.
Obviously, you only 'see' what you want to see.
The 2nd is public policy. Learn to live with it/
Even if there is some sort of public policy at work here, it is overidden by the fact that the defendant could easily offer an overriding justification for the dismissal: Absences from work without the employer's permission create a burden on that employer.
Provide evidence for this claim. Give me a single case where a court found that it was public policy to allow people to carry weapons onto another's property in violation of their wishes.
No, this day is just fine, --- seeing that you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an individual right.
jones
Dear jonestown,
"Playing the 'dozens' has no rules."
No, but to play successfully, it helps not to sound as if all you're doing is parroting your adversaries' material. People will come to the conclusion that you have no wit of your own.
;-)
sitetest
The same test can be applied to this case, where the employee's stored their guns in the car as they worked. That's a traditional practice in most of the country. The right is to transport guns as I previously outlined. The purposes for that are many and govm't at all levels have provided for it for any lawful purpose. That's to prevent govm't infringement.
Additional reference are the laws, rights, and priviledges that exist outside the workplace that would be denied employees if this type of policy stands. There is also a lack of legitimate business reason for the policy, especially with the lack of data backing up the employer's claims. The data refute the employer's claims.
Private parties never infringed as in this case. Now they are attempting to do so. The OK legislature recognized this attempt to infringe on these rights and traditional practice and forbade it. The companies are suing to shut down the legislature. Whirlpool withdrew from the suit. I think they did so, because they recognized this. The rest have an agenda to push.
Dear spunkets,
There's a lot of stuff in your post. I think I'm going to respond through a couple of replies.
"That's right, there is no right to park on someone else's private property. I listed the rights involved and you ignored them."
I haven't ignored them. I've merely said that you don't have a right to park your car on someone else's property if you're unwilling to comply with their terms for doing so. The solution for the person unwilling to comply with the terms is not to park there. That's all.
"You are also addressing the private property right of the employer as some sort of absolute that exists in a vacuum."
No, not really. I've actually acknowledged that the private property right isn't absolute, in that it can be legally abridged by legislatures. I've actually said the Oklahoma state legislature has the legal authority to prevent property owners and employers from enforcing a rule like this.
I've only said that, failing such abridgement, the property owner has the right to set the terms of your coming on to his property with regard to the possession of firearms.
sitetest
Then the problem is on your end in your reading comprehension. I am a member of the NRA, own firearms and believe that individuals have the RKBA.
The burden exists regardless of permission. The relevant question is whether, or not the burden is persistant and regular. Now there's the FLA to consider.
Which is exactly what this company's done to its employees. Except "reciding the invite" is called "firing" when an employer takes such an action.
As I said before, the business relationship here makes the situation unique from any other arrangement.
Obviously, you only 'see' what you want to see.
The 2nd is public policy. Learn to live with it.
723 jones
You play your game, I'll play mine.
Dear spunkets,
"She calls in and tells the boss that she doesn't have a babysitter for that day. The boss demands that she comes in, or she's fired. She stays home and is fired. Does she have a tort case for being fired w/o just cause?"
It depends.
Prior to the passage of the Family and Maternal Leave Act, pretty much, yeah, you could. Why? Because an employer can easily state that showing up for work is needed to get the job done. The dismissal is justified on the fact that the job may intrinsically require showing up to get it done.
However, with the passage of the FMLA, employers with over, I think, 15 employees (I'm working from memory, here), must provide a limited amount of unpaid leave to deal with certain sorts of family problems.
Nevertheless, should the single mom use up all her FMLA-mandated time, and the employer has properly tracked the usage of this time, and otherwise obeyed the requirements of the law, yeah, he can fire her for not coming to work because she couldn't get a babysitter.
Even under the assinine FMLA, the government has not yet given anyone a right to a job for which they fail to ever show up. But we're getting close.
It is ironic, though, that you use this act to defend against companies with the firearms policies which we have been discussing. Bottom line, a lot of conservatives disagreed with the FMLA (myself included) because it is one more instance of the government telling the business owner how to run his business.
Can the government do that? Yup. At least according to the way case law and constitutional law work in the present day in our country. Is the government required to do that? No. Would this "right" to miss work exist without this specific law or something like it? Nope.
You are pointing out another case where the pre-existing rights of businesses have been curtailed through intrusive legislation.
In this case, the government tells businesses of a certain size or greater that they can do without employees, even if they are critical (when you have only 20 workers, probably everyone is critical or nearly so), for up to 12 weeks in a given one-year period.
Just as it is not illegal or unconstitutional for companies to have employment policies that you think are foolish, stupid, or inane, it is not unconstitutional for legislatures to pass foolish, stupid, inane, and even unduly burdensome laws.
Otherwise, the entire tax code would have been ruled unconstitutional some decades ago.
sitetest
No, this day is just fine, --- seeing that you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an individual right.
jones
Dear jonestown,
Sorry to hear that all you're doing is playing a game.
I was actually here to have intelligent conversation with individuals who could support their assertions, rather than just parroting their adversaries' posts.
sitetest
Double negatives aside, that's correct.
Thus, you've made it quite evident that you don't agree our RKBA's is an individual right.
This conclusion does not follow from your first statement. A refresher course in logic might be in order.
(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:
(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.
I guess that whole protecting the right and control of private property only applies to your own property, huh?
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.