OT: Guns at work or guilty until proven innocent

Not sure I remember correctly, but I believe the steel mill I worked for in the '80s in Texas had a rule in their contract with the steelworkers' local that no firearms were allowed on the company property.

They had the same agreement on drug paraphenalia, so a roach clip and feathers hanging from the rear view mirror would be confiscated and searches were permitted to keep drugs out of the steel mill. Don't know that there were any other penalties. Maybe, if the infractions occurred often enough, some punitive measure might have been taken.

This was a contractual part of the working agreement, not a secret from anyone.

If you have ever seen a steel "pour," you'd appreciate the prohibition of stoners working around it.

Those guys worked in hell in Texas in a steel mill during the summer. They must have lost a huge amount of weight from perspiration each shift.

On a slightly related note, a friend of mine would not buy Ruger guns because they excluded offering their group insurance to any employee who rode a motorcycle. (The policy has since changed.)

On private property, rights are negotiated, not given.

But I sure as hell would have insisted on wide-spread publication of the rule before enforcement, unless they had another agenda.




Be well and safe.
 
Munk,
Same happened in my Co. yrs. ago."NO FIREARMS IN VEHICLES ON CO.PROPERTY"! Co. Automotive Services was cleaning a VP'S car,opened glove compartment and guess what......nice little Auto.!! Wellp PANDAMONIUM....what to do...oh me...oh my...Foreman didn't want to cause a rucus so he called head of security...he didn't want to make waves so he called next level! Slapped on wrist,NEW POLICY!! Guns in veh.are now considered as if veh.is your home.NO LOOKIE! Also seems to be "Don't ask!! Don't tell"!
THE DUCK! :cool:
 
I would think the vehicle a reasonable place where the company's rules are outweighed by individual rights. It will be interesting to know if insurance policies favor no guns, as we might imagine.



munk
 
What I found interesting and thought provoking about this:

First the continual erosion of the vehicle as being protected by the 4th amendment. This loss of privacy regarding vehicles can neither really be labeled a left or a right issue, although the supreme court has recently upheld vehicle searches of a more severe nature with the most of the dissenting justices being Democratic nominees.

Second rather than the aspect of the government trying to get someones guns, I was amazed how quickly the democratic process worked to institute a law to PROTECT people from this, but at the same time how that the big corporation went to bat to strike down this law. This kind of stuff happens all the time on worker safety issues, environmental issues, and other privacy issues, but since guns are such a hot button issue it was immediately addressed. If only the voters considered their other constitutional rights as under fire.

Third, since it is the gun issue, unlike other issues of privacy, worker, safety or environmental protection, it is harder for the company to sway public opinion by saying it is just "liberals" and write it off. Also since it is a corporate versus gun owners it kind of pits two sides of the same party against each other.

As far as me voting for Kerry and being upset about this I don't see the connection because I am not a single issue voter. To paint all democrats as being anti gun is not accurate. As a matter of fact I found the link to this article on the Democratic Underground forum and the poster and the majority of the responders were opposed to the way the workers were treated :)
 
cliff355 said:
How come everybody else has to get a search warrant to go into a locked car??????!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Private companies or individuals don't need to get a warrant, nor can they.

A car parked on company property is the same as a car parked in your driveway; insamuch as the company has every right to prohibit anything they wish and search without a warrant.

If you come over to my house and I tell you: "I don't allow red hats on my property, and I reserve the right to search your car at any time in order to see if you have in fact brought a red hat onto my property" and you park at my house anyway, you have agreed to my terms.

It's unfortunate that these people lost their jobs, but there is nothing illegal about the company's behavior.
 
Thomas Linton said:
To discriminate is to chose one over another - as in whom you decide to employ.

Discrimination is lawful except when motivated by a very, very few criiteria ("race" [but only some ethic groups], sex, religion, national origin, handicap --and "sexual preference" in a few jurisdictions.).

Collective bargaining agreements may, by contract, bar certain discrimination or require "good cause" for firing.

Absent a prohibited motive or a collective bargaining agreement to the contrary, an employer may fire you because you like rock music, drive a Chevy, have a gun in your trunk --- or smoke.

The Government may decide to create yet another "protected class."
Click to expand...


TO WHOEVER "DINGED" ME OVER THE ABOVE:

This is simply a statement of the law as it exists IMO. It is supposed to be an area of the law I know something about, but I have never claimed perfection in anything. If you think it is inaccurate, please point out my error(s) here or in an e-mail. I can't learn "my lesson" if I haven't a clue why you acted as you did.

(If you are merely unhappy with the law, work to change it as was done in OK -- and Ohio, where we finally got CC.)

Tom
 
There are some issues here that are not being dealt with, How did they find the gun in the first place? It says a sweep in the parking lot , that would indicate the the car was unlocked. I would say that was irresponcible behavior. Rave on about anti gunner if you wish, keeps you all puffed with "justifiable" indignation. It's just not right to leave loaded guns laying about unsecured. The guns should have been locked up. I would also venture to say that if you allowed your employer to search your car your basically an idiot. They don't have the right to do that. Also you have to ask why they did a search in the first place, I would venture to say there had been a problem. Why else would they go to the trouble in the first place? I really doubt that any company would take the time to do such a search unless something funny was going on in the first place.
 
so if I refuse to have my car searched, what are they going to do restrain or force me? They don't have that kind of jusdiction I'm sure. No I think they will need a warrent. I'm no legal expert, but unless there is probable cause I do believe that even getting a warrent will be hard. I'm sure there are some here who know more than I. I also understand that the state could have been a " right to work " state , which actually means a right to fire you with not explaination. That the way georgia is, I can tell you that.....

so how do they get me to open up my car if I don't want to? doesn't make sense.....
 
This loss of privacy regarding vehicles can neither really be labeled a left or a right issue, although the supreme court has recently upheld vehicle searches of a more severe nature with the most of the dissenting justices being Democratic nominees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Someone should tell Clarence Thomas, that most of the 'dissenting justices' were democratic party selections. Though it is his dissenting opinion most widely copied, quoted and distributed, he won't be surprised that many remain moribund to the Demoratic party, assigning it every wealth and none of the fault.

There are only two conservative Republican appointees on the court.
Scalia was the shocker. Personally, I could kick him for that.

This should underscore to everyone that the Supreme Court should not be trusted. There is a book I intend to get. "Men in Black" by Mark Levine.

Interestingly enough, his main premise is that the Democratic Party, losing in polls, Govenatorial positions, the Senate, Congress and the Presidency, have invested much of their last hope on the Judiciary to legislate from the Bench what they could through the other two branches.

He reminds us the Supreme court is hardly infalliable, upholding segregation and other historic blunders throughout this nation's history.


munk
 
brantoken said:
so if I refuse to have my car searched, what are they going to do restrain or force me? They don't have that kind of jusdiction I'm sure. No I think they will need a warrent. I'm no legal expert, but unless there is probable cause I do believe that even getting a warrent will be hard. I'm sure there are some here who know more than I. I also understand that the state could have been a " right to work " state , which actually means a right to fire you with not explaination. That the way georgia is, I can tell you that.....

so how do they get me to open up my car if I don't want to? doesn't make sense.....
Click to expand...
Many large corporations have you agree to searches of your vehicle and personal belongings as a condition of employment. I suspect that you could refuse the search but you would probably be either fired immediately or detained if they thought they could get a warrant for the search. Some businesses do have legitimate concerns about theft and/or security issues. Government contractors also may have some security obligations regarding black programs, etc. Other corporations have legitimate problems with industrial espionage, pilferage, etc.
 
I expect you are right, Howard, but think we need to offer more protection of personal rights in our autos parked at our place of employment.



munk
 
Thomas Linton said:
TO WHOEVER "DINGED" ME OVER THE ABOVE:

This is simply a statement of the law as it exists IMO. It is supposed to be an area of the law I know something about, but I have never claimed perfection in anything. If you think it is inaccurate, please point out my error(s) here or in an e-mail. I can't learn "my lesson" if I haven't a clue why you acted as you did.

(If you are merely unhappy with the law, work to change it as was done in OK -- and Ohio, where we finally got CC.)

Tom
Click to expand...


It is funny I got dinged also and I didn't even say much! I wish the person would at least say why. :rolleyes:
 
brantoken said:
so if I refuse to have my car searched, what are they going to do restrain or force me? They don't have that kind of jusdiction I'm sure. No I think they will need a warrent. I'm no legal expert, but unless there is probable cause I do believe that even getting a warrent will be hard. I'm sure there are some here who know more than I. I also understand that the state could have been a " right to work " state , which actually means a right to fire you with not explaination. That the way georgia is, I can tell you that.....

so how do they get me to open up my car if I don't want to? doesn't make sense.....
Click to expand...

Generally, when you hire in (or at some point after you have been working there) you will be asked to sign a form saying that you understand that any vehicles on company property are subject to unlimited search for any reason at all. Alternatively, it will just be posted as company policy, which you implicitly assent to by accepting a job there.

Things such as warrants, jurusidction, and "probably cause" do not apply in this case, as it is a private institution that is doing the searching. These concepts apply only to government searches.

Your car is on their property. They can search it if they want to. End of story, unless your state has a law to the contrary; which most don't.

A paper manufacturer not allowing a handgun in the parking lot is no different than a theme park not allowing alcohol. Both items are totally legal to have, but it is the prerogative of the property owner to exclude them if they so desire. I see nothing wrong with this.

How can they get you to comply? Terminating your employment is one option, not allowing you to park on company property is another.

However, this idea works both ways. If you are unwilling to play by the rules that your employer has established for their own private property then catch a ride to work with somebody else or start looking for another job.
 
Dinged? Mr Linton and Mr Nelson, two of our politest and friendliest folks?

I am getting sick of this!

The red ding is an excuse for all the passive aggressive pain some weaklings can inflict- with impunity.

At least give your names-

Or is it just one person doing this?

I've been dinged twice- both times for percieved 'moral' lapses; someone is taking my inventory for me!

I wish they'd heal themselves- but they can't, which is why they like red dings so much!

It's like a freebie for the slovenly.

munk
 
to detain, as I said before. That would be illegal , most employers are not officers of the law. They don't have a right to force you to do anything. Yes I can sign a statement that they can search my car, but that doesn't mean that is practical. In Gainesville Ga it illegal to eat chicken with a fork, I have never heard of anyone being arrested for it though. If you want to fire me you can do that anyway,(don't you guys play poker, it's a bluff ) . If I am a good employee why would they gamble on losing me for no reason like a random search?. .... On government property especially a secure facility it's different understandable so, but I'm pretty sure there would have to be probable cause even there, If for no other reason than you can't search everybody all the time. Besides, If you show up there with contraban and act up, your a bonehead.

So if your car is locked, I go to my car and I drive it home, If they say they want to search and don't have a warrent, are not officers of the law,ie don't have a warrent , .... Ugh sorry guys I'm late for a dental appointment , see ya tomorrow, how about then? Then I wouldn't be refusing the search...... :rolleyes:

Which gets back to the point I was trying to make, these guys had to be boneheads,either they didn't have their cars locked, had the guns in plain sight ( great way to get your car window smashed, sorry not a good idea in an unattended car) , the employer knew who had the guns( a prior problem, or indesgestion of some sort), Had a warrent ( they were bad guys) or they opened up there cars and just let them search( even though they were not officers of the law, not smart) . So I'm also having a hard time understanding why all the liberal smashing, anti-gun/progun retoric and political talk :grumpy: , boneheads have nothing to do with any of that? they are just boneheads.... but then again I could be confused again..... ;)
 
Brantoken- you cannot assume the cars were unlocked in the parkinglot. They were probably forced to unlock them under threat of termination.
As many have said- as a condition of employment which one no doubt signed in the stack of papers upon getting the job.




munk
 
fishbulb said:
Generally, when you hire in (or at some point after you have been working there) you will be asked to sign a form saying that you understand that any vehicles on company property are subject to unlimited search for any reason at all. Alternatively, it will just be posted as company policy, which you implicitly assent to by accepting a job there.

Things such as warrants, jurusidction, and "probably cause" do not apply in this case, as it is a private institution that is doing the searching. These concepts apply only to government searches.

Your car is on their property. They can search it if they want to. End of story, unless your state has a law to the contrary; which most don't.

A paper manufacturer not allowing a handgun in the parking lot is no different than a theme park not allowing alcohol. Both items are totally legal to have, but it is the prerogative of the property owner to exclude them if they so desire. I see nothing wrong with this.

How can they get you to comply? Terminating your employment is one option, not allowing you to park on company property is another.

However, this idea works both ways. If you are unwilling to play by the rules that your employer has established for their own private property then catch a ride to work with somebody else or start looking for another job.
Click to expand...
Well said. A couple of points though.

Corporations often have ties with local law enforcement agencies and the possibility of an officer arriving with a warrant or with "probable cause" for a search should not be discounted.

I'm not convinced that parking your car on private property gives the property owner the right to search it. Do you have any references on this? Your statement would seem to imply that the owner of Safeway or the barbershop has the right to search my vehicle when it's parked in their lots, and I don't think that is the case.
 
Howard, the point is you've signed away this 'right' (not to be searched) when you accepted employment.

As I said earlier, OK passed a law to ban these searches, but a Fed judge stayed the law.




munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top