[spunkets]

"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."

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.

[NittanyLion]

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...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.

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.