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
Why is physical assault, or similar excluded?
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. No one, not the builder, not the employer is "required" to provide any parking spaces for any specific employees.
Our local 7/11 burned down. -- To rebuild they were required to provide 2 new offstreet parking spaces for employees.
The government does not require me by law to provide parking for my employees.
Some don't, most do.
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.
And if the local government wanted you to provide employee parking and mandate that it be used, they could make that a condition for renewing your business license.
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.
Yep, that's the idea. Control every aspect of an individuals life, and in effect, take away as many individual rights & freedoms as possible.
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.
Yet many are being 'coerced', as in Oklahoma, into abandoning their RKBA's. Why you defend this coercion is beyond comprehension.
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.
One of our most basic rights is being 'assaulted', and you claim the employer is 'rightful'. Go figure.