Gunman Kills 5 Co-Workers, Self [he'd been to "threat assessment counseling"]

LA Times ^ | 7/9/03 | Scott Gold and Lianne Hart

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Both Lockheed and the union get nailed is my suspicion.

Threat assessment counseling in the workplace might be the dumbest idea I've ever heard - no employee is worth that. Its up there with the Ford EAP for drinking on the job in the category of stupid collective bargaining provisions.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Just making a point relative to my perception of what the upward post meant. Didn't include a sarcasm tag, though.

;)

[wimpycat]

You're sort of in a catch-22 in those type situations. If you don't fire somebody who openly espouses racist/sexist remarks, then you risk a lawsuit from the target of those remarks for creating a "hostile work environment". Or you run the risk of having the guy coming to your facility fully loaded and blasting away at your employees.

[kjam22]

Nah.... Lockheed has done what the PC crowd wants done. They took steps. Documented, and eventually sent the guy home before there was a problem. The fact that he came back with a gun isn't their fault.

Now they may settle out of court for about a 50th of what the suit is ...just to keep the stock price up. That could happen, but there is no way they lose in court.

[from occupied ga]

Free speech my ass. I suppose if some Ay-rab (or black or Indonesian) co-worker talked to you about how great it was to run those planes into those buildings and talked about how he'd like to kill the crusading infidel, you'd think he was merely exercising his free speech and shouldn't be penalized for it.

You completely miss the point (as usual). First, let me say I think that you're an idiot. I speak this freely and without any fear that I will be prosecuted by the government for expressing my opinion because of the first amendment. Should this expression of my opinion be free of consequences? No of course not. I will now have to put up with all sorts of flame, moronic false accusations and tedious posts like the one you already made.

For the record, my position on saying what you think should be protected from legal consequences, not all consequences. If, like the Dixie Chicks, you criticize King George II, then you shouldn't be prosecuted by the government. On the other hand, if your fans don't like it, be prepared for a drop in income and don't whine about it. Likewise if you think the racism is good (and the supremes and the majority of the black "leadership" says racism is good when they endorse affirmative action) and say so, then you shouldn't be prosecuted by the government for it, but if your employer has a policy that forbids this sort of speech, then be prepared to work somewhere else.

[eddie willers]

Anger management, indeed. Is Lockheed Martin unionized or something?

Choking on it.
Probably why they just couldn't just fire his sorry ass instead of sending him to "anger management" which, I'm sure, just pissed him off even more.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Yeah, but that takes guts on the part of HR and management. Don't get me started.

[kjam22]

I don't completely disagree with your post. But let me ask you this... instead of using racism.. let's use religion because I'm not a racist.... but I am very religious. Suppose my employer develops a policy against my saying a prayer in my office during lunch before I eat my sandwhich and apple. Do I just quit my job at age 44 and go work somewhere else...... or has my employer violated any of my constitutional rights?

[GovernmentShrinker]

When one of your employees acts like this guy had, you fire him, and instruct security to never, ever let him back in.

Sure, and then the lawsuits come -- anti-discrimination laws, employment laws, ADA (his anger problem is a disability, you know), and your company is nearly bankrupted by all the legal fees and damages awarded AND the courts force you to hire him back. Keeping this time bomb on the job wasn't Lockheed Martin's idea; it was our socialist government's idea. We need to put blame where it belongs, in order to effectively pursue solutions.

[kjam22]

I agree with you. Lockheed did what Lockheed was suppose to do. And it didn't work. It obviously just made the guy madder. But that is not Lockheed's fault.

[from occupied ga]

or has my employer violated any of my constitutional rights?

Good question. Oddly enough we had something like this happen at one of the places I used to work. Some security guard was sleeping and when caught opened his eyes and said "Amen" As it turned out he was fired, but successfully sued the company for an undisclosed sum. So legally it would appear that the company would be violating your rights. Another security guard was fired for practicing his quick draw in front of the men's room mirror late at night (this was after he shot his reflection) He did not successfully sue the company.

[jammer]

There are two answers to that question; if you mean what the USSC SAYS is constitutional, then, "yes". If you mean what is really constitutional, then it is a private business and the answer is, of course, "no".

Fortunately, IMO, more and more people are questioning whether the USSC is authoritative.

[toddst]

I agree with you. Lockheed did what Lockheed was suppose to do. And it didn't work. It obviously just made the guy madder. But that is not Lockheed's fault.

However, what is Lockheed's fault is not having enough security in place to keep this wacko off the property. That's where they will be burned in whatever lawsuits result from this.

[kjam22]

So your argument is that the constitution prohibits congress from passing laws which limit free worship, but that american companies can establish such laws?

I'm not saying I disagree... I'm just saying that gives companies a lot of power over people if you extrapolate that to all of thier rights. But hey... I'm only 44 years old... I can always quit and go somewhere else... that's my ace in the hole?

[kjam22]

I don't believe there is a constitutional protection that allows american corporations to treat their employees however they choose, just because it's a private business. In fact, I think congress and the states have every right to define the guidelines for private business in this country. Just as it has the right to define the business guidelines for foriegn companies doing business in this country. I would tell you that a private business owner who doesn't like the guidelines can just go do something else.

[jammer]

Absolutely, except that American companies don't establish "laws." I think that is one of the most insidious concepts that has come along in the last fifty years: the notion that doing business with the public makes a company "public" and therefore subject to "Civil Rights" law. "Civil Rights" are rights that a citizen has with respect to government, not between private entities.

[wimpycat]

Talk about missing the point...you're the one who's ranting on about "government" this and "government" that when WE are talking about the workplace. You don't have the right--you have never had the right, and shouldn't have the right, to say or do anything you want in the workplace, because your time is not your own while you're on the clock.

And since you've opened the door to personal attacks by calling me an idiot (which is against FR rules), might I say that a mental midget such as yourself calling me an idiot is a benediction. If I thought your good opinion was worth having, then I'd know I had a serious problem.

[jammer]

Disclaimer: the following is according to the Constitution, not the USSC constitution. States DO have the right to regulate--10th Amendment--and I agree with you. The U. S. Congress does not. Again--10th Amendment, despite Holmes' bastard rendering of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

You are arguing personal circumstance, not the Constitution.

[kjam22]

I don't believe that a private individual has any more right to violate my civil rights than the government does.

[jammer]

Fine. As I said, that has become the insidious notion of the past 50 years that is a cornerstone of our socialist state.