-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
No legal right - just another condition of employment.
If you don't allow the search, all they can do is fire you.
With the law, if you allow the search they can't fire you just for having a firearm locked in there (without consequence.)
Apparently, from what these folks are saying, they can do anything they want to you as long as they do it uniformly across their employees. So apparently you have no rights whatsoever, if they have the right to tell you you can't keep a pack of cigarettes on your front seat. Sounds like they can demand a search of every vehicle in the parking lot at any moment. They could demand a full cavity search of your body if they wanted. It may be your rectum, but its on their property. They make the rules of what can be in there. Don't like it, find another job.
At least that is my understanding now that I have been educated about property rights.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,421
- 149
I did work for a company that prohibited tobacco on their property, yes that included in cars. They didn't enforce it at the plant I worked at but it was on the books. Most companies prohibit alcohol in vehicle on their property also, well at least most of the ones I've worked for.
Neither one is superior to the other, until you bring yours onto mine. If you carry a lunchbox/tool box/briefcase to work that is your property correct? Should an employer be able to tell you what you can or cannot have in it?
Anti-gun nazi wannabes? I'm very pro-gun and pro-right. I don't think you should need to pay a tax or get a background check to own full-auto, suppressors, sbs/sbr hell I see no problem with people owning grenades or law rockets I even think felons that have done their time shouldn't be prohibited. Is that pro-2nd amendment enough for you? If I owned a company I wouldn't have a problem with employees keeping a firearm in their car, depending on the business I probably wouldn't mind them keeping it on them at work.
But I do have a problem with 1/3 of this bill, and that is because it infringes on the rights of the property owner. Whats that saying? Your rights end where mine begin.
There are no illegal searches by employers, unless they are entering your vehicle without your permission.
"Mr. Hickman, we need to search your car."
A) OK (you have given permission. Not an illegal search
B) No! (You have denied permission. No search occurs, and you are likely terminated.
C) Got a warrant? (if yes, not illegal)
If there are examples of illegal searches which I've not thought of, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Apparently, from what these folks are saying, they can do anything they want to you as long as they do it uniformly across their employees. So apparently you have no rights whatsoever, if they have the right to tell you you can't keep a pack of cigarettes on your front seat. Sounds like they can demand a search of every vehicle in the parking lot at any moment. They could demand a full cavity search of your body if they wanted. It may be your rectum, but its on their property. They make the rules of what can be in there. Don't like it, find another job.
At least that is my understanding now that I have been educated about property rights.
They're not violating your rights. You don't have a right to that job.
Your rights protect you from government action, not private.
Blessings,
Bill
musclecarr
Shooter
Most of these BIG companies are the one's that produce a hostile work enviroment. Then some poor fool with a low I.Q. and no LTCH snaps, because his boss is riding him too hard, or he was wronged, or humiliated. Its happened before. It'll happen again, until the BIG Companies learn to treat all people as human beings, and not just as a number, or a body too fill the assembly line. Then talk to them as if they were dogs! Treat a person with respect and trust (as if they were carrying a handgun) and you'll get the same in return.
Are there no limits to the abuse one must endure to keep his job? How about mandatory home searches for all employees? How about providing naked pictures of your spouse, otherwise you are fired?
There must be some limits to how much an employer can coerce you into doing, at the risk of losing your job. Frankly searching my car is beyond the pale for me. What are the limits? Is there no decency!
There must be some limits to how much an employer can coerce you into doing, at the risk of losing your job. Frankly searching my car is beyond the pale for me. What are the limits? Is there no decency!
I agree.
But there are some employees that an employer can never make happy.
I have seen this culture of entitlement come from all aspects and classes of people. Be it a guy that has a masters degree in something unrelated to the field he is working in, to a guy with a GED and wants the world to bow to his every whim. Both creatures want a high hourly rate of pay and work a minimal amount of hours.
There is no getting around a boss that is a bully - that's his (or her) defect. I think for the most part those that are miserable at work are usually just as miserable in their personal lives.
There are still some good hard working people in this country - unfortunately few of them are American born.
The American work ethic of two generations ago isn't dead, but it's walking with a limp.
Deep inside I want this bill to pass, too. I just don't like property owners rights negated. It has nothing to do with safety in my eyes.
I was trying to use an argument from the other side of the Aisle, you know the Left side, but you got me with an argument from the Right side, perhaps there is no hope for us! 
Wow! I never knew I had that right!
By that logic, I'll assume you're against random workplace drug screenings (4A), non-disclosure agreements (1A), & workplace dress codes (1A).
It's amusing to watch rights absolutists suddenly flummoxed by the idea of someone else asserting their own rights.
If I buy a piece of land, it belongs to me. If I start a business on it, the business and the land belong to me. If you apply for a job at MY business, I might interview you. If I like you, I might offer you a job. If you take that job, you also agree to follow my rules. You might not agree with my rules, but then, I don't have to offer you the job. Also, you don't have to take the job. Before we ever met, you didn't have to follow any of my rules, and I didn't have to allow you on my property.
Your right to come on to my property is based on our agreement that you would follow my rules. If you don't like my rules, no problem, just don't come on my property any more. I can't force you to do anything at all. I can only ask you. You can't force me to continue to employ you. It's an entirely voluntary relationship on both sides.
Simple deal. I have a stupid, ridiculous, logically unsupportable rule about what you can have in your car. Follow it and continue working here. Don't follow it, and I no longer wish to associate with you.
You believe in rights? Why would you have the law force me to allow you on my property, and force me to continue paying you, when you won't follow the rules you agreed to when you were hired?
If I buy a piece of land, it belongs to me. If I start a business on it, the business and the land belong to me. If you apply for a job at MY business, I might interview you. If I like you, I might offer you a job. If you take that job, you also agree to follow my rules. You might not agree with my rules, but then, I don't have to offer you the job. Also, you don't have to take the job. Before we ever met, you didn't have to follow any of my rules, and I didn't have to allow you on my property.
Your right to come on to my property is based on our agreement that you would follow my rules. If you don't like my rules, no problem, just don't come on my property any more. I can't force you to do anything at all. I can only ask you. You can't force me to continue to employ you. It's an entirely voluntary relationship on both sides.
Simple deal. I have a stupid, ridiculous, logically unsupportable rule about what you can have in your car. Follow it and continue working here. Don't follow it, and I no longer wish to associate with you.
You believe in rights? Why would you have the law force me to allow you on my property, and force me to continue paying you, when you won't follow the rules you agreed to when you were hired?
If you want to smoke, don't come on my property any more.
If you're overweight, don't come on my property any more.
If you're parking a non-American made car in my lot, don't come on my property any more.
If you have a pre-existing health condition, don't come on my property any more.
If you weren't born in the USA, don't come on my property any more.
There *ARE* protections to OUR rights on your property.
Dross, you make a good case for a sole proprietorship, where we are talking about an actual person's right to dictate what happens on his own property.
Tell me, do you think your analysis applies in my work situation?
My employer is technically a "private" corporation, but take "private" with a big grain of salt. Over 70% of the company's revenue comes from Medicare/Medicaid. A big chunk of our staff salaries are paid by government grants for medical education. We get all kinds of special tax breaks from all levels of government, because we are providing "essential public services." Whenever we build new facilities, the government (local, state, and fed) chip in for new infrastructure to support it. Again, because we are providing "essential public services." The acutal parking lot, where I am told I cannot have a gun locked in my car, was built with government money on land provided by the government in a "sweetheart" deal.
Please explain how this is "private property," and point out to me the actual living breathing person whose rights are being violated by my having a gun locked in my car.
To some extent, I believe my argument applies to any corporate employer. I am not interested in the "rights" of corporations. The whole purpose of a corporation is to insulate the owners (stockholders) from responsibility. I don't see how corporate stockholders can expect to have full personal individual rights with regard to corporate property, without having the full personal individual responsibility that a sole proprietor has.
In your example of a sole proprietor, who paid for his own plant with his own money and is personally responsible for what happens there, and does have legitimate personal rights at stake, I tend to agree with you.
I do not see how this applies to corporations. I am not willing to elevate the rights of an abstract legal entity to equal the rights of an actual person.
Tell me, do you think your analysis applies in my work situation?
My employer is technically a "private" corporation, but take "private" with a big grain of salt. Over 70% of the company's revenue comes from Medicare/Medicaid. A big chunk of our staff salaries are paid by government grants for medical education. We get all kinds of special tax breaks from all levels of government, because we are providing "essential public services." Whenever we build new facilities, the government (local, state, and fed) chip in for new infrastructure to support it. Again, because we are providing "essential public services." The acutal parking lot, where I am told I cannot have a gun locked in my car, was built with government money on land provided by the government in a "sweetheart" deal.
Please explain how this is "private property," and point out to me the actual living breathing person whose rights are being violated by my having a gun locked in my car.
To some extent, I believe my argument applies to any corporate employer. I am not interested in the "rights" of corporations. The whole purpose of a corporation is to insulate the owners (stockholders) from responsibility. I don't see how corporate stockholders can expect to have full personal individual rights with regard to corporate property, without having the full personal individual responsibility that a sole proprietor has.
In your example of a sole proprietor, who paid for his own plant with his own money and is personally responsible for what happens there, and does have legitimate personal rights at stake, I tend to agree with you.
I do not see how this applies to corporations. I am not willing to elevate the rights of an abstract legal entity to equal the rights of an actual person.
You are absolutely correct that my Constitutional rights have no bearing on this situation. This isn't about rights it's about responsibility. The hiring agreement cuts both ways - I agree to your rules, you agree to provide a reasonably safe work environment and agreed-upon compensation. For example, you must provide a building with an appropriate number of well-marked emergency exits, even though businesses have a fairly small chance of catching fire. You must designate a tornado shelter, even though business have a fairly small chance of being hit by one.
Then, let's say you hire me and I agree to all your rules. One rule is that I have to be at work on time and perform my job duties until the end of my assigned shift. If a hoodlum robs me and breaks my arm in the process, you as a business owner (and through you, your Worker's Comp insurance) are responsible for my injuries as long as I have followed your rules regarding robbery procedures to the best of my ability. You restrict my options in the face of danger (i.e don't fight back, don't protect the money, don't provoke the criminal), so you must compensate me for costs incurred if your plan doesn't work. How do you as a business owner absolve yourself of responsibility if I am set upon by thugs during my commute? After all, if I'm still following your rules, why are you no longer liable for my safety?
I could never support a law that forced employers to let employees CC while inside the business and on duty. But neither can I support a status quo that allows private individuals to exert control over me and my life without some compensating responsibility.
How I see it is that the employer does not have the right to disallow so many people their rights. You can't park in my lot with a firearm because I don't like firearms, no good reason, just because. That does not fly and it's about time it has ended. The auto is deemed a personal extention of the owners property, period. The firearm must be secured in the auto, it can't come out at lunchtime or anytime else.
If any company decided that Foriegn cars are excluded from their lot, you can believe they could be sued for discrimination and I think they would lose.
The constitution does not only protect your rights against the government, it also protects your rights against those that would abuse you. You have the right to due process under the law to protect you from abusers, in this case the abuser is the company.
If any company decided that Foriegn cars are excluded from their lot, you can believe they could be sued for discrimination and I think they would lose.
The constitution does not only protect your rights against the government, it also protects your rights against those that would abuse you. You have the right to due process under the law to protect you from abusers, in this case the abuser is the company.
Please cite the article and section of , and/or amendment to the Constitution describing the Constitutional protection you claim exists from the employer with whom you voluntarily sought and voluntarily maintain employment.
I'm fine with this. If you agree to work under the above rules, that's all on you. I, personally, wouldn't agree to these rules... but then again, I don't need the government to make it illegal. Some people like the idea of a nanny state, I'm just not one of them.
Site Supporter
Members online
- TJ Kackowski
- Stengun
- drgnrobo
- grunt soldier
- Lost Californian
- bub74
- patience0830
- nhgluff
- kawtech87
- 22LRFan
- Mr.Softball
- Brandon
- XDdreams
- DoggyDaddy
- krvincen
- Kelly King
- Bluehazemay
- Wfulton
- madeuce50
- INgunowner
- duanewade
- den57
- ROLEXrifleman
- iauffenberg
- Fireman85
- JTL165
- Destro
- Cavman
- NINJA
- Myrradah
- BeDome
- jamil
- jdadkins87
- singlesix
- hoosierdaddy1976
- jedi
- rosejm
- Redd55
- Mpow18
- Big rob
- JRR85
- klausm
- WebSnyper
- indyartisan
- drm-hp
- Dog1
- Amishman44
- Squirt239
- Rafterman
- ChristianPatriot
