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.
So since we don't like the employer's free choice, let's get government involved, eh? Some so-called conservatives are all-too-happy to grow government intervention so long as they're controlling the stick...
Dear jonestown,
"Yet many are being 'coerced', as in Oklahoma, into abandoning their RKBA's. Why you defend this coercion is beyond comprehension."
I didn't defend it. I just said that in the absence of a law preventing it, it's legal.
sitetest