How come and can they?

Blackmind,

While normally I agree with you, on this one I can't. YOu state:

You're saying that if I wanted to work as an architect, studied for years, took state exams, etc., and then found that every architecture firm in the country had a policy excluding firearms, it's not unfair to me because I could "mow lawns."
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Life's rough, wear a helmet. You're not entitled to a job working under the conditions you want. You're entitled to bargain with your employer for the best deal and the best terms you can get, but ultimately you make the choice to work under the agreed conditions for the agreed amount of pay. They are the employer; its their business to run as they see fit. You have no ownership in their business. Until you can get them to agree to your terms you are knowingly and willingly assenting to the terms by accepting employment with them. (Now maybe you're very good at what you do and they'll be willing to give you that management parking space out front, a key to the executive bathroom, and the right to carry a gun. Hey, achievement has its benefits...) If you don't like the working conditions, you are free to not accept employment - if you didn't like the pay, or they weren't offering some other benefit you wanted really badly, or you had to wear a goofy costume would you accept employment there? The privilege of carrying a gun onto private property comes by the property owners consent, not by way of the Constitution. Is it wise of the employer? I think not, but again its their business to run as they see fit. Its their money invested in making it a profitable venture. Its their perrogative to set the rules for their employees and clients in a manner in which they think it will best benefit the business. You and I may not agree with how they run their busines, but its not our money at stake. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from doing what thousands of other people do every year when they decide they don't like working under someone else's rules - start your own business and run it as YOU see fit. Be your own boss rather than be upset no one will hand you on a silver platter the job you want, for the pay you want, with the conditions you want.

Lets put it this way, if you owned a McDonald's franchise, do you think the cashier should be able to tell you to take the red & yellow uniform and shove it because they want to exercise their 1st Amendment right to express themselves by wearing their Tupac 'Thug-life' T-shirt to work?
 
How about this law, if one has to be enacted

Companies have the right to dictate what is brought onto their private property.

They do not have the right to search my private property (vehicle) without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and that my car is part of the conspiracy.
And then they can only search it in the presence of a police officer with a warrant.

Sounds fair to me
Their property their rules, my property my rules

I have no problem with private property owners having total say about what goes on on their property.
I just don't understand what gives them the legal right to search my vehicle without cause
 
I just don't understand what gives them the legal right to search my vehicle without cause
Click to expand...
Your permission, demonstrated by your accepting at that firm with the rule in place, or by continuing employement when the rule is implemented.

If you have a real problem with it, walk away.

I would tell them WHY I'm walking away, if I was to walk away.

There are always other options, and by accepting theirs, you are giving your permission to search your car on company property. Or to search your person. Or to submit to a lie detector. Or to sing the company song, participate in the drumming-naked-in-the-woods retreat each fall, or whatever else it is.

If you don't like it, walk away. :cool:
 
So the constitution and bill of rights does not apply to private companies - what a relief to know that private companies can:

not hire someone on the basis of their skin color or ethnicity

refuse employment based on age or sex

refuse to employ people on the basis of their religion

refuse services based on an individuals sex, religion, race

pay or charge different rates for the same service or product to individuals on the basis of their sex, race, or religion

require certain people based on race, faith, age, or sex to sit at the back of the bus or go to the colored only entrance.

require individuals as a condition of employment to sign a contract for indentured servitude that waives their rights

It's all so clear now.
 
They do this NOT to make anyone safer, but to give themselves an out from liability in case someone they did not prohibit from bringing a gun to the office
Click to expand...
thats what they will SAY is the reason, but coming from an insurance professional (i.e. paper pushing pansy who reads coverage forms when i'm bored) i can tell you that there are no stipulations whatsoever in any CGL (commercial general liability) policy that says 'no firearms'.

OSHA will make recommendations that such wording is put in employee handbooks or posted on site, but even they admit its a feelgood measure that prevents nothing.
 
You always have options.
Click to expand...

As stated by Jammer Six.

Leave his advice at the doormat where it belongs and do as you wish. It's your life, not his.

The worst that will happen to you is that you get fired.

The worst that will happen to Jammer Six and those that agree is that they die.

You have a choice. Make it for you, not from the advice of others.

Wayne
 
So the constitution and bill of rights does not apply to private companies - what a relief to know that private companies can:

not hire someone on the basis of their skin color or ethnicity

refuse employment based on age or sex

refuse to employ people on the basis of their religion

refuse services based on an individuals sex, religion, race

pay or charge different rates for the same service or product to individuals on the basis of their sex, race, or religion

require certain people based on race, faith, age, or sex to sit at the back of the bus or go to the colored only entrance.

require individuals as a condition of employment to sign a contract for indentured servitude that waives their rights

It's all so clear now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be more clear if you read through Title 42, chapter 21 of the US Code.
 
Idea for new law:
They do not have the right to search my private property (vehicle) without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and that my car is part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

At this time your private property is on their private property and is not protected by law from search. Think about it. You are subject to search by your employer, and obviously your toolbox, clothes, fanny pack, whatever is your private property. Your employer, policy or not, has the right to search any of these things. Why not your car?

What you're speaking of is a law that's been proposed in our state. Kudos to our state legislators. I think.

If you have a real problem with it, walk away.
Click to expand...

Jammer six, you have to understand the frustration here. I, for one, am working in a profession in which it is nearly impossible to start out on your own, and no company in my field allows concealed carry. And every time there's an assault, battery, or robbery, companies pass out clear plastic wallets, and make you watch a video telling you to give the bad guy whatever he wants. Of course in the video, the last words are the company has a strict policy prohibiting offensive weapons of any sort. This sounds like the same video the flight crews on the 9/11 planes watched.:rolleyes:

Obviously I have options.

1. Stay at the company, follow the rules, and take my chances.
2. Stay at the company, break a stupid rule, and take less of a chance.
3. Try to make the company change it's policy and be fired for whatever excuse they come up with.
4. Change careers, and attempt to support 4 kids on half my household income.

Just "walk away" is not as easy as it sounds, when you're working paycheck to paycheck.

That said, I still believe the company has property rights and although I don't like the policy, economically I'm bound to stay there, but legally I can leave whenever I want. The company has the right to enforce the policy any way they wish.

The state doesn't have any problem with my breaking company policy, and the state doesn't have any problem with the company firing me for any reason under the sun. Fair enough. I choose option #2. Until I can make a change, which will likely happen next June.

There are always other options, and by accepting theirs, you are giving your permission to search your car on company property. Or to search your person. Or to submit to a lie detector.
Click to expand...
It does bother me a little that they do not need a written policy to do any of these things. I admit I felt a little violated when I was told to empty my pockets at work the other day. But they can do it, they will do it, the law says they can, and like it or not, it'll continue to get worse.

I'm raising my kids not to work for anyone else. Biggest mistake I ever made was quitting mowing lawns, going to work for a large corporation, and getting myself into the trap. If I could go back I'd do things differently, but if I had that option I suppose I'd just go back a week and buy the right lottery ticket.
 
Another thing that I just thought of, don't sign the employee handbook and have anything on file.

They can't fire you (in Oregon anyway which isn't a right to work state) if they don't have anything on file.

And since I am the admin at the training center... and was the one that types up the employee handbooks, as well as mass produces them, well, I can tell you that all the permanent employees, haven't signed the handbooks.

Only thing that I have verbally agreed to is that I pee in a cup upon demand (have a problem with that in principle but otherwise, don't have anything to worry about).

But, I don't by law have to open my doors to my private property for anyone, no matter where it's parked. They can fire me and I assure you that I will get money from their actions, right now the "norm" is 1 years pay and then serverance pay. You just have to push the issue. They can call the cops and if the cops (even if they find the weapon in your car) search and find no crime, the owner of the business is responsible for the act and will be arrested for false report of a crime and they will be taken to jail for it. Then, when your company "fires" you, you have the right to take them to court for false termination. Most states do have a law on that.

I don't know, Jammer and others like him, I feel sorry for deep down, but if I read about them in the paper, I will just have to bring up a "what could he have done to protect his life" thread. For those that depend on others, don't have any security what so ever. Those that will obey blindly, will end up ranting and venting on the boards and seeking our compassion, when they advocated doing nothing at all and then got themselves in the position that they are in now.

And they will call out names and speak words that are uncivil when I and others, show them no compassion or really care when we remember what they said beforehand.

Wayne
 
But, I don't by law have to open my doors to my private property for anyone, no matter where it's parked. They can fire me and I assure you that I will get money from their actions, right now the "norm" is 1 years pay and then serverance pay. You just have to push the issue. They can call the cops and if the cops (even if they find the weapon in your car) search and find no crime, the owner of the business is responsible for the act and will be arrested for false report of a crime and they will be taken to jail for it. Then, when your company "fires" you, you have the right to take them to court for false termination.
Click to expand...

There you go that's the law I'm talking about, enact that here and everybody can be happy again.

The Corporation can say that I can't have a gun in my car and I can wink when I agree to their silly little rule.

Actually, in my case if they search my truck the gun would technically not be in it if I were to stand beside the truck as they were searching
 
Last edited:
the following post cannot be taken as gospel

following is an email i sent to a real insurance professional today:
From: spacemanspiff
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:18 PM
To: insurance professional
Subject: Question about employers and the reasoning behind their regulations

I have a question for you. I’ve been asked by many different people in various lines of work why it is that their employer will have a ‘no weapons’ policy outlined in their handbook. In almost every case, the employer has used ‘insurance liability’ as justification, but I can’t find anywhere in any ISO form any reference to this effect.

Now, I know that OSHA will make such a recommendation to an employer, in the efforts of creating a ‘safe work environment’. Granted, given the fact that workplace violence is not an uncommon event, there may be at least a little merit to such an argument. But such a policy is useless if there is no way to enforce it, such as by using metal detectors and making the workplace sealed off from the outside world.

Would the average employers insurance policy (either CGL, professional, workers comp, etc) provide coverage against a civil lawsuit stemming from an employee of the insured using deadly force in self defense from a fellow employee? In other words, when the office psycho goes on a shooting rampage, and their co-worker stops the psychos rampage because they were armed, what liability exposures are there for the employer?

I’ve also fielded the similar question about why businesses open to the public might post signs “No Firearms” aimed at their customers. Again, the business owner usually hides behind the ‘insurance’ defense. To many, this appears to be little more than a ‘feel-good measure’, much like posting National Guardsmen in airport terminals in the aftermath of 9/11 with visibly unloaded rifles and sidearms. It may make a few people feel more secure, but its more of an illusion.

What is perfectly understood is that private property owners have the right to set policy on what can or cannot be done by others while on their premises. Obviously this includes the carrying of a concealed or unconcealed firearm. And customers or patrons of such businesses have the right to take their business elsewhere. If business owners would simply say as much, that would be acceptable. But they always say ‘my insurance wont cover you….blah blah blah’. Its more accurate for them to say ‘I don’t want my insurance company to risk having a claim filed because you were on my premises while armed and shot someone, whether accidentally, intentionally, justifiably, etc.’

I’ve seen several businesses that have posted such signs, and stood behind ‘insurance’, or ‘corporate policy’, before realizing the customers they had previously enjoyed serving were taking their business elsewhere, and ended up taking the signs down.

I’m sure you have seen the futility of such efforts in Chicago, where there is a complete ban on handguns. Doesn’t stop the criminals from being armed, nor does it stop people from being injured or killed. All it does is create ‘Victim Disarmament Zones’ that criminals can exploit with little expectation of encountering a potential victim that has the means with which to fight back.

How much more ineffective is a businesses wish that their patrons be disarmed, communicated by a mere sign that states ‘No Firearms Allowed’? After all, if mere signs could prevent such, then surely we could stop all crime from occurring by posting signs “No Murder on these Premises” or “Mugging Strictly Prohibited”.

spacemanspiff
spiffs place of employment
Click to expand...

following is the reply:

Hmmm, mugging strictly prohibited, I like the sound of that.

Most signs used by businesses are really there is provide the basis for a defense in a civil suit. The defense may or may not work but it is worth the chance to merely invest in a sign. (Think of a carnival with a ride at your own peril sign.) Yes, loss control for most insurance companies would like and probably would suggest a sign. The worry is probably more about accidents than intentional incidents but both could occur. No, they will not require the methods needed to really enforce the policy. So it really can relate to the insurance company but may not always be the case.

The General Liability form has an exception to the intentional acts exclusion that allows for reasonable protection of people and property. That could be a gun if someone is threatening you with a gun. Buy most underwriters would not feel warm and fuzzy about a gun on the premises. (Who does insure gun shops anyway?)

So, all of this is more about what happens in court rather than anything else.. Not too dissimilar from your observation on the apparent security after 9-11.

While I agree that people are the real culprit, we have all sorts of gun related accidents. Just in our news a toddler found a gun kept by his uncle and shot another toddler. I am sure he thought it was a toy. The uncle is up on charges. Luckily the other young boy will live. Frankly, I am more concerned with hand guns than rifles and shotguns. But since morality can not be legislated (I think God showed us that with the Ten Commandments), none of this will take the guns out of the hands of the criminals. Yes, it really is a problem issue. I certainly do not have any answer. I just understand why the insurance company loss control or underwriting department might like the sign.
Click to expand...


granted, the guy does appear to have some liberal ideas about the dangers of guns, but i cant tell if its stemming from liberalism or just his dedication to avoiding risks that insurance companies cannot protect us from.
 
Noone has a 'right' to a job, by the same token, no employer can compel you to show up against your will.

If you work for someome else, you have chosen to live by their rules during work hours in exchange for being compensated for those work hours.

If you have a degree in architecture and every firm in the country is antigun, you either A. have to suck it up and live by their rules while on the job. B. start your own business or C. find a new career.

Nobody owes you a job.

You owe it to yourself to get your priorities straight.

If your priority is to carry a handgun 24/7, be prepared to either work for yourself or work for substantially less money unless you are very lucky.
 
And on that note:

No one has a right to life, comply or die, or so it seems.

Goodnight all, it's been real fun tonight.

I will awake and will be alive all day tomorrow, will you? Only if your employor tells you so. :(

Good night all. Money is not my motivation, maybe life is and I will not allow anyone, to take my life from me.

It's really not that hard of a choice. If you think about it.

Wayne
 
Enforcement of a law is often different than the law as written

The law as written is often at odds with the intentions of the laws authors

The Law as interpeted by the courts is often at odds with both of the former

Laws are often at odds with the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights

And the Constituion and Bill of Rights often conflict with the Declaration of Independence

And what is moral and true often conflicts with what is legal and practiced

And God's law is not the same as man's law.


At times when the above conflict one makes a choice - as for me and my house.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top