Dear spunkets,
"I am not. The firearms are unloaded and cased in the employee's car and never come out."
Well, many others here are talking about loaded guns. I'll acknowledge that you aren't.
"'That's true, but before the FMLA, dismissing someone for these reasons wasn't considered wrongful discharge. That's why they passed a law.'
"Before the law the employee had to take them to court accompanied by a competent atty. I included the link to show that this was the case."
I saw one link that you provided about the armored car driver. Although that goes to a specific public policy question, it is not the same as the questions covered by the FMLA. I also saw a case that you cited, Collins vs. Rizkana, which is about sexual harassment, again, not related to FMLA.
Thus, my comment stands, before the FMLA, dismissing someone for these reasons wasn't considered wrongful discharge. That's why they passed a law.
If someone intermittently took time off from work, without notice, amounting to 12 weeks per year of unauthorized leave, it is likely they would have been legally terminated. I know of no uniform rule derived from case law that would have generally permitted folks to do this prior to the FMLA.
It's ironic that you would cite the armored car driver, as this was a fellow who was able to vindicate the public policy exception to his employer's rule through the courts. All he had to do was to get a lawyer and a judge.
In the case before us, the fired workers are suing, too, so it seems they've been able to get a lawyer, too.
But as I pointed out previously, these folks aren't suing on the grounds of public policy exception to invalidate the employer's rule. In other words, they don't believe that a court would rule that there is a general right to have a gun in their car on their employer's premises, or that the employer's policy violates an important public policy. They aren't even contesting that. Only that they didn't have adequate notice.
If they thought the courts would vindicate such an exception, like the armored car drive, they'd be suing on the grounds that THE CORPORATE POLICY VIOLATED RIGHTS OR IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICIES.
It is because they have judged they could not win on those grounds that 1) they haven't sued on them, and 2) they have persuaded the legislature to change the law.
Which is fair. The legislature has the right to carve out public policy exceptions, as the federal government did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other laws.
In Maryland, the legislature has codified a few public policy exceptions to employment at-will, including prohibiting firing folks because they are homosexuals.
Maryland, on the other hand, is not going to emulate Oklahoma's lead regarding folks keeping guns in their cars while parked on company grounds.
Some folks will think Oklahoma's actions foolish, while others will think Maryland's actions foolish. Some will think both are foolish. But as companies have the right to enforce policies that are foolish but legal, so do legislatures have the authority to pass laws that are foolish but constitutional.
"The govm't doesn't grant rights. The govm't can only recognize and acknowledge, that they exist, or not. The FMLA creates entitlements. I'm not otherwise going off on the tangent of entitlements and the FMLA."
Well, you brought up FMLA, not me. You brought it up in the context of a discussion about rights, and public policy exceptions to employment at-will. You're the one pushing the idea that the FMLA either codified rights or a public policy exception. Here is what you said in response to my stating that there was no public policy exception prior to the FMLA:
"Before the law the employee had to take them to court accompanied by a competent atty."
Now you're saying FMLA is about entitlements.
I don't blame you for abandoning this line of argument.
"Just the opposite. You seem to think the right of self defense and the exersise of that right, to and from work is insignificant compared to the employer's 'right' to dictate from his throne."
Actually, I just think if you want to carry a gun in your car, that's fine (as long as the law allows it), but if your employer doesn't want your gun on his property, don't park on his property.
"You seem to think the hard won legal battles to regain what was taken away by authoritarians before, should be surrendered to the same bozos in different shoes now. Your argumnets are the same as those put forth by the bozos paying in script, redeemable in the company store, by those who kept the dangerous properties of such things as asbestos secret, toxic waste dumping, ect."
Ah, couldn't avoid getting insulting, huh? Couldn't avoid the use of intemperate language, equating my arguments with the arguments of "bozos" who are "authoritarian," who paid folks in script, who dumped toxic waste, who kept the dangers of asbestos secret.
Although we differ on some questions, we had managed to keep the disagreement agreeable up until this point.
It is too bad you couldn't keep up your end of that.
I haven't ever suggested that there is no proper place for regulation in employment law.
But as a business owner, I'm cautious about laws that further restrict the range of action that an employer has. That doesn't mean I want to enslave anyone, or pour asbestos down their throat, or dump toxic waste in the rivers.
It just means that I think a business owner has a right to say what stuff can and can't be brought on his property.
Whether you agree with his opinion or not.
"No employer in his right mind would search cars for guns before this recent campaign."
Well, there are large numbers of employers, some who are very large, very profitable, very successful businesses who disagree with you. I suppose that they are all out of their right minds. In that case, they will likely be insolvent soon, so why worry? ;-)
"'does not force the employee to do anything at all'
"BS! Employees die on their way to and from work, because of criminal attack."
Park your vehicle off the company premises. Problem solved. That's what these folks have begun to do.
You don't like that? Get another job. If enough folks do that, perhaps the company will change its mind. Or, if it can't get enough workers at market rates, perhaps the facility will go out of business.
Better yet, the employees here believe that their judgment on how to run the business is superior to management's, let them start a competing company!
I'm disappointed that you had to descend to insults, spunkets.
I suppose this is because you have a very narrow range of vision, and don't acknowledge that other people of good will have radically different perspectives about these questions than you.
sitetest
The act goes beyond rights protection.
"I'm disappointed that you had to descend to insults, spunkets. "
They're not insults. They're my apprasal and anology of the employer's actions here. To wit:
"Park your vehicle off the company premises. Problem solved. ...You don't like that? Get another job."
IOWs, let 'em eat cake.
"I suppose this is because you have a very narrow range of vision, and don't acknowledge that other people of good will have radically different perspectives about these questions than you."
That's right. I value my fellow's Freedom and honor their rights. I don't see them as potential postals deserving such tyranical treatment, nor do I appreciate the libel written about them stating and otherwise hinting and beating around the bush that, that is what they are. I see no threat from folks carrying their firearms in their vehicle and leaving them there before entering the workplace. It has been common practice all over the country, and now all of a sudden it's a nuisance? Not!
"Well, there are large numbers of employers, some who are very large, very profitable, very successful businesses who disagree with you. I suppose that they are all out of their right minds."
I described the former state of affairs and noted this campaign is not old, it is recent. I also gave the reason. That was, because the legislatures and courts failed to do their bidding.
Park offsite? How long before the local ne'r do wells figure out that line of cars that appears and changes with the shift contains goodys? Not only have those hard working, loyal employees been inconvenienced, they've had their property placed at risk by the benevolent employer. They have a choice, right? They can find another job, our abandon exercise of their rights.
"It just means that I think a business owner has a right to say what stuff can and can't be brought on his property. "
Seems to me, that some folks are being dictated to by the trial lawyers and leftists. Instead of facing them, they're turning on their fellow citizens and hard working, loyal employees in the hope of escaping their jaws. Problem is that they'll be hungry again tomorrow.