Steel Mill blasts "Bring Your Gun To Work" bill

[jedi]

I agree, it is your right to carry. It is my right to carry. I carry everyday, everywhere I go. But if my employeer says it is against his rules, then so be it. I will either have to break his rules, stop carrying, or get a new G.D. JOB (... oh yea, or cry to the government to take away his rights)!

Let the neg rep fly!

You don't like the rules go somewhere else.

No neg rep from me, but why would an employer feel entitled to regulate what I do off his or her property when I'm not on company time? That's what you'd be doing by banning guns from an employee's locked vehicle. If my employer would like to allow me the option to go on the clock from the moment I leave my house in the morning, and clock out when I return home at night, then fantastic, I will happily agree to whatever restrictions they choose to place on me. Unfortunately, the current state of things allows an employer to mandate I be unarmed while on my own time. There's nothing in this that forces business owners to allow employees to carry, nor to even bring weapons into the building. It simply protects an employee's right to carry while off the clock and secure the weapon in the employee's own property during their workday.

I do agree with you hear Bubba and it may sound like I am contraticting myself based on my first quote. I see it this way. Say I leave home with gun and park on a public street or private lot (not company own) and walk to company without gun (to obay said company rules). Based on this the company has NO SAY in my gun period. Yet most companies will still fire you based on the above. Which is BS.

Now if I park in the company owned parking lot then I should have to obey the rules of said biz. Again don't like the rules get another job.

 

[paddling_man]

I understand that folks on this site are pro-gun... but this bill is anti-freedom.

It sounds like people think they have a fundamental right to their job. That is a load of poop.

If I decide to start a business, I should be able to hire and fire whomever I desire... sure, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex... fine. But if I want to prohibit this or that from the workplace, the workplace I created, I should be allowed to. If you don't like my rules, go work some other F'n place.

I agree, it is your right to carry. It is my right to carry. I carry everyday, everywhere I go. But if my employeer says it is against his rules, then so be it. I will either have to break his rules, stop carrying, or get a new G.D. JOB (... oh yea, or cry to the government to take away his rights)!

Let the neg rep fly!

I agree with you 100%. The employer says "no guns in the workplace," follow the rules or get another job. No "whatever" in the workplace? Follow the rules or go elsewhere.

Where I begin to draw the line is outside of the "workplace." The confines of my personal vehicle are not, in my view, part of the workplace. It is an extension of my home that brought me to work. What I listen to in the car, what I read - none of it is the business of my employer.

Parking lot? Locked in my personal vehicle that is NOT used for business purposes but only transport to get me to and from work? Nonsense.

If I have something illegal in my car in the lot and am "caught." Maybe. Maybe.

Legal? Nothing legal in my vehicle is their business.

They may ask to look in my car. They may ask me to empty my pockets. They may ask me about my religious beliefs, what I had for dinner last night and what my wife's favorite sex position is BUT I have the right to tell them to pound sand.

Can they fire me for anything or nothing, including not complying with anything in the above paragraph? Sure. I can also sue their pants off... with prejudice.**


**Not the litigious type but there is a line.

What's next, I can't have a pack of cigs in my car if the company dosen't like smoking? There's no difference

Or a Bible or a non-kosher hot dog or a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or a McCain/Palin flyer or a Saints hat or a prescription bottle or a...

I'm all about protection of individual rights and non-obtrusiveness of the government. An employer has the right to dictate nearly all things IN THE WORKPLACE under penalty of termination. This is America! The country with the love affair with the automobile?! My car, like my house, is my castle.

Their workplace - their rules.

My car - my rules.

 

[Bubba]

Now if I park in the company owned parking lot then I should have to obey the rules of said biz. Again don't like the rules get another job.

The majority of business don't ban firearms in the parking lot. Customers in most places can legally carry a firearm and park, walk around, shop, etc. They only ban guns in "the workplace". That leaves two options. Either the interiors of cars in the parking lot are part of "the workplace" and firearms should be banned for all occupants thereof regardless of their affiliation with the business, or cars in the parking lot are not part of "the workplace" and firearms should be allowed in those cars, with the employer's "no guns" rule kicking in once an employee has left their vehicle. Even if, as you say, an employee parks off-site, do you think you could find an employer anywhere that would accept liability for any injury you may incur while walking to work?

 

[MTC]

I understand that folks on this site are pro-gun...

Imagine that - IndianaGunowners being pro gun [rights]. Ya think? Not to worry, though. If some recent on-site polls are any indication, only about 2/3 actually are. The rest are in favor of "common sense" gun laws and "reasonable restrictions".

...but this bill is anti-freedom.

Freedom to what? Tell me what I can keep in my vehicle?

It sounds like people think they have a fundamental right to their job.

No, just a fundamental right to their property, just as you have a fundamental right to yours.

If I decide to start a business, I should be able to hire and fire whomever I desire... sure, I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on race or sex... fine. But if I want to prohibit this or that from the workplace, the workplace I created, I should be allowed to. If you don't like my rules, go work some other F'n place.

For the last time: the bill is not about guns in the workplace.

I agree, it is your right to carry. It is my right to carry. I carry everyday, everywhere I go. But if my employeer says it is against his rules, then so be it. I will either have to break his rules, stop carrying, or get a new G.D. JOB (... oh yea, or cry to the government to take away his rights)!

If you concede to your employer the "right" to prohibit items of your personal property (your sidearm) while within your personal property (your vehicle), he has effectively eliminated your "right to carry" while off his property. As for the last part, if everyone respected others' rights properly, there would be no need for this law in the first place.

Let the neg rep fly!

Never given neg rep and never will.

 

[bigus_D]

...

If you concede to your employer the "right" to prohibit items of your personal property (your sidearm) while within your personal property (your vehicle), he has effectively eliminated your "right to carry" while off his property.

...

I do concede that the employer has the right to prohibit items from their property. This should include items that are within your property (i.e. your car) while on their property.

This is where I disagree: By doing the above, the employer has IN NO WAY taken away your rights. You still have the right to NOT PARK ON HIS PROPERTY!!! It is that simple. If you want the job, follow his rules. If you want to park your car on his property, follow his rules. If you don't want to stop carrying, you have the right to go elsewhere.

It isn't right to take away somebody else's rights (property rights) so that you can do whatever you want (excersize your right to carry). The employeer is NOT taking away your right, you are reliquishing it in order to enjoy the benefits of the workplace he has created.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

he has effectively eliminated your "right to carry" while off his property

Unless you're his indentured servant, you still retain your RTKBA. You can find gainful employment elsewhere or simply choose to ignore the rule.

 

[Dr Falken]

I'm going to give an argument in support of the bill and I will couch it in terms of "workers rights" and "enviormentally friendly". First off, let's protect the rights of workers from being fired for excercising their legal rights. Secondly, let's limit fuel consumption and the resultant impact on the enviornment that is caused by workers driving extra miles to go home to get their firearms (bows?) to go hunting. If I had to travel home to get my shotgun to go hunting, I'd have to go home, then backtrack past work to my destination, increasing the fuel consumption of my "Clunker" (what us gun totting people drive). So to sum up, protect (fellow) Workers' Rights, and Save the Enviorment by supporting HB1065!

 

[MTC]

The disagreement, especially over where that line is drawn, is so profound that that's one of the things that prompted this bill.
Regardless of the outcome, it won't change how I do things anyway.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

let's protect the rights of workers from being fired for excercising their legal rights.

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).

 

[Jubbie]

Just curious, but this would nullify any existing policy, not just prevent a new policy that includes "no guns in vehicles while on company property"? If existing policies get grandfathered in, I'll have to talk my personnel manager into redoing our policy.

 

[rambone]

I was under the assumption that my vehicle remained my private property, no matter where it sits. If property rights are the grounds for rejecting this bill, why do employees lose their property rights when they come to work? Is the employee and his vehicle the de facto property of the employer?

What's next, I can't have a pack of cigs in my car if the company dosen't like smoking? There's no difference

Or a Bible or a non-kosher hot dog or a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or a McCain/Palin flyer or a Saints hat or a prescription bottle or a...

Really? An employer may ban you from storing cigarettes in your car? Or prescription medicines? How about an American flag bumper stickers? When does "your property" stop being "your property" ?

I guess I just don't see how one man's private property is superior to another man's private property. Even if one has wheels.

If anything this would be a win for the property rights of vehicle owners. My vehicle is not "the workplace."

 

[Roadie]

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).

Drug screenings screen for ILLEGAL drugs, yes? Bad analogy

Non disclosure agreements protect the companies assets from being illegally shared/sold. Bad analogy.

Now, dress codes? There HAVE been some lawsuits regarding dress codes where they are unequally applied. Example, men can't wear earrings, women can. Mean can't have long hair, women can.

I personally know a man that worked for a machine shop. He grew his hair out, and was told he had to cut it. The women in the shop put their hair up, so he offered to do the same. They said no, he had to cut it. So, he contacted an attorney that specializes in workplace law, and the attorney contacted the employer and informed them of his intent to file a sexual discrimination suit on my friend's behalf. They acquiesced and let my friend put his hair up.

This is also an example that "employment at will" isn't as blanket as many think. It HAS to be doled out fairly, and equally. For example, you can't fire someone for attendance for 3 absences, if you have someone in the same area, employed for the same amount of time, who has 4 absences but keeps their job.

As I have said before, yes, businesses have rights, UNTIL they interfere with employees personal rights. You CANNOT tell and employee to remove their Palin sticker from their car due to the 1st Amendment, why can they tell me I can't exercise the 2nd?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Drug screenings screen for ILLEGAL drugs, yes? Bad analogy

Non disclosure agreements protect the companies assets from being illegally shared/sold. Bad analogy.

Now, dress codes? There HAVE been some lawsuits regarding dress codes where they are unequally applied. Example, men can't wear earrings, women can. Mean can't have long hair, women can.

I personally know a man that worked for a machine shop. He grew his hair out, and was told he had to cut it. The women in the shop put their hair up, so he offered to do the same. They said no, he had to cut it. So, he contacted an attorney that specializes in workplace law, and the attorney contacted the employer and informed them of his intent to file a sexual discrimination suit on my friend's behalf. They acquiesced and let my friend put his hair up.

This is also an example that "employment at will" isn't as blanket as many think. It HAS to be doled out fairly, and equally. For example, you can't fire someone for attendance for 3 absences, if you have someone in the same area, employed for the same amount of time, who has 4 absences but keeps their job.

As I have said before, yes, businesses have rights, UNTIL they interfere with employees personal rights. You CANNOT tell and employee to remove their Palin sticker from their car due to the 1st Amendment, why can they tell me I can't exercise the 2nd?

An employer cannot tell you you must remove your Palin (or Obama) sticker from your car. They CAN tell you that no political bumper stickers are allowed (or even "no XXXXX Party stickers") are allowed, and if you wish to leave your stickers on your car, you must park elsewhere. They can prohibit you from driving a car made by XXX company onto their lot, but not prevent you from driving that car.

I like the effect of HB 1065, but I do not like, approve of, nor agree with the methodology of it. (What they did is good. How they did it is not.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Drug screenings screen for ILLEGAL drugs, yes? Bad analogy

The 4A protects against unreasonable search & siezure. Random drug screenings are not based upon probable cause. The analogy stands.

Non disclosure agreements protect the companies assets from being illegally shared/sold. Bad analogy.

So...you believe that a corporation has the right to prevent theft of intellectual property by stifling the 1A rights of it's employees...while you think that an employee's voluntary attendance at the office/shop may negate the physical property rights of the land owner/leasor?

That's horribly inconsistent IMO.

 

[bigus_D]

I was under the assumption that my vehicle remained my private property, no matter where it sits.

Sure... it remains your private property. Just like the contents of your pockets. But it is my right to not allow you in my home with a pistol in your pocket. It is my right (or should be at least) to not allow you in my workplace with a pistol in your pocket.

The car is no different. If you want to bring your personal property onto my personal property, then you need to respect my property rights. WHAT I SAY GOES ON MY LAND. There is no other way to look at it IMHO.

 

[E5RANGER375]

cry cry cry me a river, you poor anti-rights companies. go open your business in the Communist Republic of California if you dont like Indana, you anti-gun nazis wana be's

 

[Paco Bedejo]

cry cry cry me a river, you poor anti-rights companies. go open your business in the Communist Republic of California if you dont like Indana, you anti-gun nazis wana be's

 

[Bill of Rights]

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).

I would be against any of those things being mandated by law. As they are conditions of continued voluntary employment, I support the employers' right to insist upon them... so long as they are applied fairly and equally. (that is, you as an employer cannot discriminate against any protected class, such as demand that the token Black man must wear a particular uniform because he is Black. If there is a bona fide difference between his job and that of anyone else, then the difference in uniform is not because of his skin color, it's because of his job. I still don't think the employer could get away with demanding that that employee come in to work dressed like Venus Flytrap or Huggy Bear, however.

Random workplace drug screenings: As a condition of employment, to determine if an employee (or group of employees) are impaired and thus of questionable ability to perform the job for which they were hired, I would support that. I would expect them to test for alcohol also, and to limit the test to what is in the person's system right now, not what has been in the past month or longer. I would also expect the stipulation that any findings not be released to law enforcement. For the record, I neither condemn nor condone drug use, prescribed or illicitly obtained. I choose not to use such things myself.

The bottom line is that if the employer's policies are outside the limits to which you are willing to go, you need to work elsewhere or change your limits. The 2A, and indeed, the entire Constitution, is a limit upon government, not on private businesses or property.

To get into violations of property rights necessitates going into the realm of law passed by the various legislatures.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I would be against any of those things being mandated by law. As they are conditions of continued voluntary employment, I support the employers' right to insist upon them... so long as they are applied fairly and equally. (that is, you as an employer cannot discriminate against any protected class, such as demand that the token Black man must wear a particular uniform because he is Black. If there is a bona fide difference between his job and that of anyone else, then the difference in uniform is not because of his skin color, it's because of his job. I still don't think the employer could get away with demanding that that employee come in to work dressed like Venus Flytrap or Huggy Bear, however.

Random workplace drug screenings: As a condition of employment, to determine if an employee (or group of employees) are impaired and thus of questionable ability to perform the job for which they were hired, I would support that. I would expect them to test for alcohol also, and to limit the test to what is in the person's system right now, not what has been in the past month or longer. I would also expect the stipulation that any findings not be released to law enforcement. For the record, I neither condemn nor condone drug use, prescribed or illicitly obtained. I choose not to use such things myself.

The bottom line is that if the employer's policies are outside the limits to which you are willing to go, you need to work elsewhere or change your limits. The 2A, and indeed, the entire Constitution, is a limit upon government, not on private businesses or property.

To get into violations of property rights necessitates going into the realm of law passed by the various legislatures.

Blessings,
Bill

This, IMO, is so gosh darn full of win, words fail me... {wipes tears from eyes}

 

[HICKMAN]

I still don't really see the need for the bill.

What legal right does a company have to search my car now?