Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

[brickeyee]

If an employer knowingly singles out an employee, and applies a policy about their behavior only to them, its called 'harrassment'.

"Harassment" over what?
Not following a policy that applies to everyone?

They just sent him a notice because they believed he was the only person it would affect.

An employer could decide to fire you because they decided that 'Bob' (your name) is not acceptable.

'At will' employment is just that, at will.

You can be terminated for any reason (or no reason).

 

[p99guy]

Even if Texas does get a law passed in the future that allows us to have a gun in the vehicle on an employers parking lot...I'm still S.O.L. because
I work on a Federal Gub'ment compound with its own police farce, ooops force. And they will tell us tough noogies...Texas law don't apply to this property.( they are even that way over handicap parking hangtags)
There are times driving home after midnight, that I would have rather had my sidearm. They dont even let their own Police have a personal handgun on property, or leave work with their issue one.....its crazy.

 

[Brian48]

My employer never had a firm policy regarding CCWs until this past year. We hired a new HR and one of the liberal weenie things she did was put this in there. I think I'm the only one who carries here, but she doesn't know that. In fact, I've carried for 8 years here and still no one knows.

 

[mavracer]

And... if I visit a business that has other rules? No jews allowed, perhaps?

let me clearify he may not tell you you can't own a leather wallet just that you can't have one on his property.
they can't fire you for having a permit however they can not allow weapons.
they can't discriminate for religion they can however tell you no religious jewelry or images on your T-Shirt.
they can fire you for not working on sunday.
A buisness can put up a sign "no prayer on premisis" and ask you to leave if you drop to your knees praying.if you dont leave it will be trespassing.
A buisness/owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[fisherman66]

A buisness/owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.

google "racial discrimination restaurant" and see example after example of courts disagreeing with that statement.

 

[skeezix]

The courts also don't have the authority to call something constitutional or not, regardless of what they think. Just because it's a common practice doesn't make it legal The States voted in the Constitution, so they can vote on whether or not something applies.

If my work place does not allow me to carry firearms that is the owners right. I ALSO have the right to start my OWN company and make those rules as I see fit. THAT is where the free speech and freedom comes into play.

Just like smoking bans. Do I have the right to visit a restaurant without breathing cigarette smoke? Yes, and that is why I have the right to take my money to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. It doesn't, however, give me (or legislation) the right to FORCE establishments to cater one way or another, that is what my wallet is for. Money talks! Especially since there are only 2 forces that guide capitalism - profit and loss.

We all have rights, just keep in mind where those rights actually exist and what they apply to. For those who think that carrying anyway is ok (in a work place where it is ruled against) because you "have the right", this is no different than someone coming into your own home and bringing a gun (even if you demand they do not bring one) because they "have the right".

;-)

 

[mavracer]

google "racial discrimination restaurant" and see example after example of courts disagreeing with that statement.

read thru the first ten hits.
two settlements out of court.
two thrown out.
two won by the restaraunt.
four not gone to court yet.
so zero 0 for 10 on courts disagreeing.

 

[Alleykat]

It would be illegal to discriminate against an employee on that basis, but a bank could easily have a no weapons policy with an exemption for a security guard or sum such scenario. It would need to be part of a job description or written policy to have exceptions, and those could be subject to court test.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to hunt for source. As part of an HR dept, if fairly confident in my statement.

And you'd be wrong. In a Right to Work state, employees are employed at the will of the employer. Unless an employee is in a protected class, and, as Brickeye says, carrying a concealed weapon won't get you into a protected class, then the employer can pick out an individual employee and fire him/her for no reason. If the employer thinks that a particular employee isn't competent to be armed on the job, then the employer can fire that employee or prohibit that employee from carrying a concealed weapon, while permitting other employees to carry.

 

[fisherman66]

As frozen friend pointed out this is not a protected class issue, but a hostile work environment if a policy is created and applied to just one employee and not detailed in a job description.

This isn't a competency issue either, but if it were that employer would need to have documentation and be prepared to defend those findings.

 

[oneounceload]

You can believe anything you want. I believe in little green men from outer space built the pyramids but that does not make it true.

Open to the public has nothing to do with it. Property owners have the right to control who is and who is not armed on their property. Sorry but it is more entrenched and established right. One that is on sounder footing than the right to carry

As mentioned above, not necessarily true here in Florida

 

[Alleykat]

Property rights vs carry rights is a sticky subject (and possibly a topic for its own thread), but I'll say this about that: I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket. The business owner could say, "No employees are to carry wallets made from leather, because I love cows." While the law says he can do this, is he not interfering too heavily with the lives of his employees? That's a trivial, comedic example, but the principle applies. While one's constitutional rights are supposed to end where they infringe upon the rights of another, this situation is a two-way infringement. With this conflict, one right will have to make way for the other. If property rights trump 2A rights, then the employee may be placed in a situation that costs him his life. If the opposite holds, the employer has armed employees who are still bound by many other laws not use/abuse those arms.
__________________

Property rights have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[MLeake]

Property rights have nothing to do with the discussion?

Business owners would beg to differ. Their point is that they should be able to control what items are allowed on their property.

So, this really is an argument about property rights (the business premises and parking lot) vs 2nd Amendment.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

An employer could decide to fire you because they decided that 'Bob' (your name) is not acceptable.
'At will' employment is just that, at will.
You can be terminated for any reason (or no reason).

And "at will" doesn't hold water in court often enough for companies to hide behind this. If your statement were true, then court cases won in favor of the former employee would be virtually non-existant.

If the employer thinks that a particular employee isn't competent to be armed on the job, then the employer can fire that employee or prohibit that employee from carrying a concealed weapon, while permitting other employees to carry.

So, a county sheriff that deems a person competent to carry concealed anywhere the state allows gets trumped by the opinion of an employer? Unless the employer can prove the employee was negligent i.e. brandishing, and others are allowed to carry at work, the employee would stand a very good chance to win in court.

Hostile work environment=Harrassment

Fisherman66 is just about dead-on with his statements. (Having a wife with some HR background, albiet rusty on every single law, doesn't hurt either.)

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Business owners would beg to differ. Their point is that they should be able to control what items are allowed on their property.
So, this really is an argument about property rights (the business premises and parking lot) vs 2nd Amendment.

This is argumentative. Unless another Staff sees it unfit, I think the OP has the right to make this call if it furthers clarification for him.

I'm also moving this over to L&CR...

 

[skeezix]

It IS about property rights, that is the thing. You are not forced to work at a specific place, you have the choice to run/start your own company as you see fit, making those rules as you see fit, or working elsewhere that better compliments your desires or beliefs. As long as you choose to work for a company, you choose to abide by those rules. Don't like 'em? Go elsewhere! You're not forced to stay, and the state of the economy doesn't have a play in this.

The only real benefit to the original situation in this thread is that this manager doesn't appear to be the owner, and the owner trumps manager should they choose to override the choice of no firearms on the premises ;-)

You DO have the right to defend yourself, which is an option if you work elsewhere, start another company, etc. When you step into anothers domain, you are bound by their rules. This is common sense and the very essence of why government is here. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" --- To secure these rights! That means THEM too! You have the right to make your own rules on your own property. So does everyone else. Your rights stop when they overstep their boundary on another person.

As for kangaroo courts and silly decisions on 'harassment', in capitalism the courts have no say on how or why someone gets fired. This is purely the right of the employer, they hire or fire whom they will. It's the attitude of "but it's my right!" getting twisted into a silly mess that causes the misconceptions that one persons freedom or liberty (or assumption of them) somehow completely overrides that of another person.

Do I not have the right to hire whom I wish in my own company? Do I not have the right to fire whom I wish in my OWN company? Am I not the person taking the chance of going out of business, paying people with MY blood, sweat and tears? If you choose to work for me, you also choose to work by my rules or go elsewhere. You also agree to whatever payment we agree to, whether it be next to nothing, or exorbitant. You have the choice of starting a competing company and doing a better job, or have better prices for consumers, better quality, or any combination of these. If my business decisions put me in the position that I hire second-rate people just because of an issue of firearms (or anything else), then I will have a second-rate company and eventually be overtaken by a competitor. This is my right as an owner, the right to fail, the right to make bad choices as well as good. That is what freedom and liberty is.

No one is a slave unless by choice.

I suppose another example to help - I have the right to freedom of speech. However, I do NOT have the right to walk into my neighbors house and speak whatever I wish - that is their home, their property, and they would have every right to remove me by whatever means necessary. Does that somehow mean my right to free speech was taken? Nope! I certainly DO have the right to speak whatever I wish in my own home however. This is the difference.

 

[rellik74]

When I worked for Keebler (the elf sob's:barf we could not even talk about guns while at work with out the worry of geting fired. The way they treated people I know why they were worried.

WE did talk about our bows mine was a Ruger hand Bow and my Enfield hunting bow

 

[BigJakeJ1s]

The Texas bill also exempted employers with secured (i.e. fenced/gated) parking lots (they would still have been able to ban weapons in cars parked on company property.)

Andy

 

[divemedic]

Sooooo NOT true...Disney is in possession of an explosives license thereby excluding them from the "Bring Your Gun To Work Law" as well as any other business with such explosives license (ie. fireworks, dynamite)

Its a BS loophole and I don't agree with it...but it's there to be exploited.

Actually, Disney thee park property is NOT exempt, and they settled their lawsuit out of court for undisclosed terms. The state law reads:

(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

The ATF license that Disney has is applicable to a portion of the Disney property that does not include the theme parks or the employee parking lots. Disney had the property platted that way, because it is illegal to operate a hotel on land where explosives are being manufactured. You can't have it both ways.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I would ask that the policy be announced in an e-mail to everyone in the company.

I would also go to everyone I knew who carried, get together and request the company provide beefier security if you are not allowed to carry(I will assume like most offices it currently has no security officer and certainly not an armed guard).

 

[Al Norris]

skezik, even in right to work states, should you fire an employee without cause, you will pay for that employees unemployment, out of your your own pocket, in cases where your insurance won't pay or in cases where the law demands payment from you directly, not your insurance.

Harassment charges, are generally civil actions, although in some cases it may be criminal. So it will not be a "kangaroo" court that tries you and/or your business.

Then there are those "wrongful discharge" civil Torts. These can cost you also. Again, these cases are not tried in "kangaroo" courts, whatever you may think.

All of the above can and do happen to employers/businesses in right to work states.

This is my right as an owner, the right to fail, the right to make bad choices as well as good. That is what freedom and liberty is.

No one is a slave unless by choice.

Sorry to inform you, but in America, not even by choice.

Employment laws (both criminal and civil) were put into place, to protect employees from just such people as you.

As such, these are not property rights laws. They are employment laws designed to protect employees from the type of abuse that is slavery, and also designed to protect employers from sue happy employees... In the case of right to work States, to protect employers from unions.

Now, as to the actual property rights of the business/business owner, the State may regulate just about any activity you care to name. That comes under the broad heading of the States power to regulate (intrastate) commerce. You, as an owner-employer have no say in how the State regulates your business. The State can ban smoking, for reasons of the general welfare, in your place of business, whether or not you like it.

For those same reasons, the health and safety of the public, the State can tell you that you must allow employees to have their personal firearms locked in their vehicles, on your property, whether or not you like it.

When it comes to business, property rights take a back seat to the powers of the government to regulate commerce, since before the beginning of this Republic.