Steel Mill blasts "Bring Your Gun To Work" bill

[indytechnerd]

My question(s) on this for the employer vs. employee rights debate...

If my vehicle is considered my castle for the other 16hrs of the day, why should I lose that when I drive into my employer's parking lot?

How does the 'employer rights' camp reconcile disarming employees during their commute to and from their workplace?

Before you all start yelling "if you don't like it, work somewhere else", let me just say that a VAST majority of businesses have weapons verbiage in their workplace violence policy. Finding one that doesn't is NOT an option. For example, here's the blurb from my employer's building facility policy...

• NO FIREARMS, GUNS OR WEAPONS OF ANY KIND

and workplace violence policy...

What Actions Constitute Workplace Violence?
...[snip]...
Possession of weapons on company’s premises.

 

[sparky241]

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!

ok so because you have the right to not let guns into your business, i should have to be a victim going to/from work? Is that what your saying? Because thats why im looking forward to this bill.Individual rights should trump company rights.
This has nothing to do with taking freedoms away from employers. You are still not allowed to bring it into work but the government long ago ruled that my car is an extension of my private property and i should have the right to have a legal firearm in my vehicle if i so desire because it is my property.

 

[bigus_D]

ok so because you have the right to not let guns into your business, i should have to be a victim going to/from work?

Well... Yes, and no.

You have the right to be a victim going to/from work (IF YOU CHOOSE TO WORK FOR ME!!!)... ONLY THEN AM I "taking your rights away".

Get that? Only after you excersize your freedom of choice and decide to take the job I am offering (albeit with some terms of my choosing), are my rules affecting your life. Furthermore, if I were running a business, I doubt I'd restrict the freedoms of my employees like this... but it should still be my freedom to do so on my property.

Don't want to be a victim, then GO GET ANOTHER JOB!!!


Please do note, my employer hasn't restricted my rights in such a way that I am uncomfortable with... if they tried, I'd leave. Get it? I am free!

 

[bigus_D]

My question(s) on this for the employer vs. employee rights debate...

If my vehicle is considered my castle for the other 16hrs of the day, why should I lose that when I drive into my employer's parking lot?

How does the 'employer rights' camp reconcile disarming employees during their commute to and from their workplace?

Before you all start yelling "if you don't like it, work somewhere else", let me just say that a VAST majority of businesses have weapons verbiage in their workplace violence policy. Finding one that doesn't is NOT an option. For example, here's the blurb from my employer's building facility policy...

and workplace violence policy...

park someplace else.

start your own business.

break their rules and don't get caught.

 

[Bubba]

So I ask again (assuming you had a business with a no guns rule), what compensating responsibility do you have toward an employee who is following your rules when they are off the clock? Is their commute paid work time? Do you provide worker's comp insurance for incidents during their commute? How can you sleep at night knowing that you have removed an employee's right to self defense (notice I didn't say you were bound by Constitutional rights) without providing even the shallowest of promises for a safe environment?

 

[dburkhead]

Your rights protect you from government action, not private.

That turns out not to be the case (at least not entirely). For example, if I, as a private citizen, beat a confession out of you (whether you committed the crime or not) then that's still inadmissible and rightly so.

Note, if I break into your house and evidence of illegal activity there that evidence is admissible even though I, as a private citizen, didn't have a warrant. OTOH, I would be chargeable with the breaking and entering, theft, and whatever else was involved in obtaining that evidence.

Also, consider it from a philosophic point of view: if rights exist independent of the Constitution and, therefore, of the government, how can they be only limited to protecting one against actions by the government. Indeed, the purpose of government, per Thomas Jefferson and the folk who signed the Declaration of Independence is "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." If the only thing the rights protect against is government then how does that work?

 

[rambone]

What if company policy dictates that all the women be sexually abused during work hours?

They gave up every shred of legal protection when they got the job correct? Bend over or go get another job! This is my castle and I'm the king around here! Your rights end when mine begin!

We don't live in a world of absolutes, is all I'm saying.

 

[bigus_D]

So I ask again (assuming you had a business with a no guns rule), what compensating responsibility do you have toward an employee who is following your rules when they are off the clock?

ABSOLUTELY NONE...

Is their commute paid work time? Do you provide worker's comp insurance for incidents during their commute?

NOPE.

How can you sleep at night knowing that you have removed an employee's right to self defense (notice I didn't say you were bound by Constitutional rights) without providing even the shallowest of promises for a safe environment?

Well... since I don't have this rule, I sleep fine. And since I wouldn't have this rule, there is still no issue for me personally.


In regards to the 'work here: agree to get raped daily' rule. That is just ridiculous. If there is going to be a gray line, it is clearly no where near that.

 

[Bubba]

So property rights are almost absolute and the business owner can pick and choose at will when he or she has a responsibility toward their employees. I notice you say "IF" there is a grey line it doesn't go all the way to rape (despite Dave's correct reasoning that if a woman agrees to the policy it's consensual), just where might (or might not) the line lie?

Hell, let's just eliminate all regulation that interferes with a business owner's right to conduct business on his or her property as he sees fit. 8 year old coal miners? High Voltage panels without covers? Large rotating equipment without safety markings or guards? All fine, as long as the employee agrees to work there. We could also bring back the old "company store" tactic of the 19th and early 20th centuries, making your employees so indebted to you that you'll never have to pay them a dime. As long as the employee agrees to your rules what's the harm? While we're on the topic, we'll need to get rid of accessible fire exits, fire extinguishers, and illuminated exit signs. Additionally, worker's comp coverage is now optional, as long as you put a line in the company handbook that says you don't offer it. You'll no longer need to make any reasonable provision for safety glasses, safety clothing, respiration gear, or safety training. Also we'll have to put severe restrictions on unlawful imprisonment type laws throughout the country, since if it's "your house, your rules", there is no legitimate reason to force you to open "your door", as long as you put that rule in the handbook too.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

+1 Task Force Tips

Sadly I must disagree. They get a cookie b/c they "allow" you to have a handgun in your car, but only after you let them keep a copy of your LTCH on file? You're kidding right? Do I also need to give you a copy of the license for the jumper cables and snow scraper in the trunk?

TFT looks like they are doing a good thing but they need to do one better and stay out of people's business- and that means not maintaining any record of peoples' LTCHs. Once again, the people to worry about aren't going to follow any rules like this, so you are only imposing on the law-abiding. I wouldn't consider TFT's situation to be some model of success for firearms owners.

 

[Bubba]

There are a lot of totally different issues being introduced here... talk about straw man! GEEZ

These are not totally different issues. The essence of the employment contract, whether written or not, involves both parties giving something for the other's benefit. The employee agrees to surrender a portion of their free will by giving their time to the employer and following his reasonable mandates. The employer in turn agrees to accept responsibility for his employees' well being and to provide an agreed-upon compensation to the employee. Without one, there isn't the other. If the employee doesn't do his job, the employer is not obligated to provide pay or other benefits. If the employer doesn't do his part, the employee is entitled to cease laboring on behalf of the employer and to seek any owed compensation in civil court. The employer cannot demand obedience from the employee without any reciprocating responsibility, as slavery is illegal IIRC.

 

[jsgolfman]

I'm the last one to cry for ANY state regulation, but this does nothing more than codify the private property rights of the individual, vis a vis his vehicle. IMHO, if you've taken one dime from the public trough, you no longer have the right to claim your business as private. Not that your business had "rights" to begin with, as it is an artificially created entity in the first place, but as a corporation you have certain protections.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When I originally read this reply, I was doing so on my phone, which has a very small screen. In reading the text of this reply, I was unable to see who wrote it. Still, something told me it was you, David.

That turns out not to be the case (at least not entirely). For example, if I, as a private citizen, beat a confession out of you (whether you committed the crime or not) then that's still inadmissible and rightly so.

Still a protection from government. Where would this confession be "admissible", barring the battery charges? In court. Court is the judicial branch of government. Ergo, protection from government, not private action. Your protection from private action (the battery) comes in the form of statute law.

Note, if I break into your house and evidence of illegal activity there that evidence is admissible even though I, as a private citizen, didn't have a warrant. OTOH, I would be chargeable with the breaking and entering, theft, and whatever else was involved in obtaining that evidence.

In other words, you are protected from the actions of government agents entering your home to find this evidence without warrant, but not from the actions of a private citizen, whose crime, as you note, would be covered under statute law. As to the admissibility of that evidence, I'd want to see how that's applied. Example?

Also, consider it from a philosophic point of view: if rights exist independent of the Constitution and, therefore, of the government, how can they be only limited to protecting one against actions by the government. Indeed, the purpose of government, per Thomas Jefferson and the folk who signed the Declaration of Independence is "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." If the only thing the rights protect against is government then how does that work?

Good quote from Jefferson. I have another, often falsely attributed to Washington. The quote's pedigree (or lack thereof) does not diminish its truth: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Yes, we enter into and create governments to secure our rights. This is not the only thing gov't is supposed to do; protection from fraud, provision for armed forces in time of war... These would be among the functions of the dangerous servant, thus, we use the servant to write the rules under which it must operate, those rules being reviewed carefully by the master (the People). Here is where we as a society failed: We did not review. We allowed the servant to take more and more and more power. We have, over time, allowed it to become, or at least to behave as if it was, the master, and it is indeed fearful.

David, you quoted one line of my post above. You chose not to quote the other, so I'll ask you directly: Do you believe that any person has a natural and/or fundamental right to be employed at a particular job and/or by a particular employer? Obviously, I'm not speaking of such things as issues of discrimination on basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, or gender.
If they do not have that basic natural and fundamental right, then they have no right to be on the employer's property, and thus are there at his pleasure, as a privilege and their work is compensated. If it is not compensated at a level they deem appropriate, they may choose to leave, but they have no legal recourse except in matters of discrimination and, though I don't agree with it, minimum wage.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

When I originally read this reply, I was doing so on my phone, which has a very small screen. In reading the text of this reply, I was unable to see who wrote it. Still, something told me it was you, David.



Still a protection from government. Where would this confession be "admissible", barring the battery charges? In court. Court is the judicial branch of government. Ergo, protection from government, not private action. Your protection from private action (the battery) comes in the form of statute law.

In other words, you are protected from the actions of government agents entering your home to find this evidence without warrant, but not from the actions of a private citizen, whose crime, as you note, would be covered under statute law. As to the admissibility of that evidence, I'd want to see how that's applied. Example?



Good quote from Jefferson. I have another, often falsely attributed to Washington. The quote's pedigree (or lack thereof) does not diminish its truth: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Yes, we enter into and create governments to secure our rights. This is not the only thing gov't is supposed to do; protection from fraud, provision for armed forces in time of war... These would be among the functions of the dangerous servant, thus, we use the servant to write the rules under which it must operate, those rules being reviewed carefully by the master (the People). Here is where we as a society failed: We did not review. We allowed the servant to take more and more and more power. We have, over time, allowed it to become, or at least to behave as if it was, the master, and it is indeed fearful.

David, you quoted one line of my post above. You chose not to quote the other, so I'll ask you directly: Do you believe that any person has a natural and/or fundamental right to be employed at a particular job and/or by a particular employer? Obviously, I'm not speaking of such things as issues of discrimination on basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, or gender.
If they do not have that basic natural and fundamental right, then they have no right to be on the employer's property, and thus are there at his pleasure, as a privilege and their work is compensated. If it is not compensated at a level they deem appropriate, they may choose to leave, but they have no legal recourse except in matters of discrimination and, though I don't agree with it, minimum wage.

Blessings,
Bill

You can't use "barring battery charges" because one of your right is not to be beaten up without just cause--and that isn't just a right enforced against government agents. One of your rights is not to be killed barring due process("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") and so we have homicide charges. One of your rights (barring due process and eminent domain) is to your property. Thus we have laws against stealing. And so on.

I only quoted one line because that was the specific one I was addressing. The quote attributed to Washington does not either refute or trump the Declaration of Farging* Independence.

I do not think that a person has a right to any particular job. However when the government creates a situation where the vast majority of people are going to face a restriction on rights that are enumerated in the Constitution if they are to be employed at any available job then it is up to the government to rectify that situation. The current law is not my preferred method of doing so--and I have said so before--but it is the one that has proven politically achievable.

It's not just the employers who have made the "no guns" decisions but the employers plus the courts with the intermediaries of the insurance companies.

*Edit: Forgot to put the "reps to the first person to get this reference" but Bill of Rights got it, and the rep.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You can't use "barring battery charges" because one of your right is not to be beaten up without just cause--and that isn't just a right enforced against government agents. One of your rights is not to be killed barring due process("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") and so we have homicide charges. One of your rights (barring due process and eminent domain) is to your property. Thus we have laws against stealing. And so on.

I can use "barring battery charges" because that would be a different issue. The "confession" obtained under the duress of the beating would be inadmissible to a court that might attempt to use it to convict me of something I didn't do (or even that I did do). That's a Constitutional protection against action of government. The action of the interrogator would be dealt with as a crime unto itself, and any action of mine would be irrelevant unless the interrogator claims self-defense.

I only quoted one line because that was the specific one I was addressing. The quote attributed to Washington does not either refute or trump the Declaration of Farging* Independence.

Fair enough. I just thought it was a relevant point.

I do not think that a person has a right to any particular job. However when the government creates a situation where the vast majority of people are going to face a restriction on rights that are enumerated in the Constitution if they are to be employed at any available job then it is up to the government to rectify that situation. The current law is not my preferred method of doing so--and I have said so before--but it is the one that has proven politically achievable.

It's not just the employers who have made the "no guns" decisions but the employers plus the courts with the intermediaries of the insurance companies.

In that the courts have allowed rulings against the "tripped on the sidewalk"/"fell on the bus"/ "poured hot coffee on my vajayjay", yes, I would agree that they have gently or not-so-gently pushed ins. companies to make policies for the lowest common denominator (and I'm reminded of The Waco Kid consoling Sheriff Bart here: "You know... Morons.") but I still think that if enough of them demanded firearms-friendly policies, they would happen. Too many now behave like they're going in car-shopping, and when it comes time to buy, they are presented with pre-made contracts that are the only way the dealer will sell the vehicle, other than cash on the barrelhead... and no one brings their own contract with them.

Why reinvent the wheel? It's one-stop shopping! They already hired the lawyers, and it may have a tittle there or a jot here, but it'll all be the same... just sign it.. And before we know it, that's all that's offered.

I am vaguely reminded also of the comment recently posted about 545 people... The House, Senate, SCOTUS, and President... who are solely and completely responsible for any and every law... Not the lobbyists, not the special interests.. They influence, but the representatives of the people are tasked with making the call and if necessary, disregarding or eliminating undue or improper influence. The business owner has a responsibility to make the decisions about his business, and while the ins. co. can influence that decision, it falls to the owner to make it. Gov't is a little harder... They also, for many years, have fallen prey to that influence-people who think they are so much more sophisticated and who must save us poor, ignorant unfortunates from ourselves.

You and I are in agreement that the effect of the law is good and that this law is not the best way to do it, but it IS (obviously) politically achievable. I think we're arguing only semantics at this point (is there peanut butter on my chocolate or is there chocolate in your peanut butter?)

Want a Reese's cup?

Oh.... You're getting Johnny Dangerously rep.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

I can use "barring battery charges" because that would be a different issue. The "confession" obtained under the duress of the beating would be inadmissible to a court that might attempt to use it to convict me of something I didn't do (or even that I did do). That's a Constitutional protection against action of government. The action of the interrogator would be dealt with as a crime unto itself, and any action of mine would be irrelevant unless the interrogator claims self-defense.

Confessions are admissible. It's confessions beat, coerced, or otherwise "compelled" out of a suspect that are not. It doesn't matter who is doing the "compelling" it's the "compulsion" aspect that makes it a violation of rights.

You are not protected against having your confession used against you. You are protected against being compelled to be a witness against yourself.

Fair enough. I just thought it was a relevant point.

Well, if that government is force is relevant then so would be that armed self defense is force. Of course government is force. The question is what that force is to be used for. Jefferson gave that: "to secure these rights...."

In that the courts have allowed rulings against the "tripped on the sidewalk"/"fell on the bus"/ "poured hot coffee on my vajayjay", yes, I would agree that they have gently or not-so-gently pushed ins. companies to make policies for the lowest common denominator (and I'm reminded of The Waco Kid consoling Sheriff Bart here: "You know... Morons.") but I still think that if enough of them demanded firearms-friendly policies, they would happen. Too many now behave like they're going in car-shopping, and when it comes time to buy, they are presented with pre-made contracts that are the only way the dealer will sell the vehicle, other than cash on the barrelhead... and no one brings their own contract with them.

And if wishes were fishes we'd walk on the sea.

In an ideal world there would be no need for things like HB1065. But then we don't live in an ideal world.

Why reinvent the wheel? It's one-stop shopping! They already hired the lawyers, and it may have a tittle there or a jot here, but it'll all be the same... just sign it.. And before we know it, that's all that's offered.

I'm not sure what you mean by this paragraph.

I am vaguely reminded also of the comment recently posted about 545 people... The House, Senate, SCOTUS, and President... who are solely and completely responsible for any and every law... Not the lobbyists, not the special interests.. They influence, but the representatives of the people are tasked with making the call and if necessary, disregarding or eliminating undue or improper influence. The business owner has a responsibility to make the decisions about his business, and while the ins. co. can influence that decision, it falls to the owner to make it. Gov't is a little harder... They also, for many years, have fallen prey to that influence-people who think they are so much more sophisticated and who must save us poor, ignorant unfortunates from ourselves.

The insurance company can influence the decision to the point of "have a no guns policy", "risk being sued without insurance to cover the loss", or "pay enough for the policy that you cannot compete with other businesses that don't have a no guns policy". Two of the three run the serious risk of, sooner or later, the employer not being an employer any more (having been sued into bankruptcy or gone out of business through being unable to "keep up" with companies with different firearms policies).

You and I are in agreement that the effect of the law is good and that this law is not the best way to do it, but it IS (obviously) politically achievable.

Agreed.

I think we're arguing only semantics at this point (is there peanut butter on my chocolate or is there chocolate in your peanut butter?)

I think that the main points of potential disagreement remaining between you and I are:

1) is the "better" fix politically achievable. (I don't think it is at this time.)
2) is the "patch" worth doing even though it's less than the best way of dealing with the problem. (I think it is.)

Want a Reese's cup?

Strangely enough, I don't care for chocolate, nor for peanut butter, nor for nuts in my sweets, but I love Reeses cups (my favorite candy).

They are one of four major "challenges" to me staying on my diet. (Fried Chicken, Cheese, Reeses Cups, and, of course, Bacon)

Oh.... You're getting Johnny Dangerously rep.

And back at you for being the first to get the reference.

Blessings,
Bill

And may quantum wavefunctions always collapse to your benefit.

 

[level.eleven]

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.

Yes, I have been to facilities where briefcases and bags were checked. You were not allowed to have cell phones with cameras or removable media such as a USB drive. These items were routinely confiscated.

Your second part is the same reaction I had to that drive-by one liner.

 

[E5RANGER375]

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?

i wouldnt know if i should call you boss or KING ??? way over the top. good thing you dont own a business, one of your employees would own it and your wife, and your dog after the first year you were open

 

[Bubba]

Your rights end where mine begin.

If we're going to bring this back up, let's explore the concept. Every law abiding US citizen has all the rights endowed by the Creator and defended by the Constitution. EVERY. Your rights end where mine begin means different things depending on the person who is speaking. When the starving pauper takes food from a grocer's shop, does the right of the grocer to his personal property end where the pauper's right to life begins or will the pauper be arrested for theft? Alternatively, if I take my dog into a butcher's shop (silly I know, but hang with me), does my right to my property (the dog) end when I enter the butcher's property (the store), allowing him to grind my dog for sausage?

The problem with all men being endowed with inalienable rights is that all men have those rights. Laws are created to address points of contention where two people exert contradictory rights over the same thing. In the case of HB1065 the employer is attempting to exert control over the employee's private property and the employee is attempting to exert control over the employer's private property. A serious point of contention, yes, but we should also consider that each right brings a responsibility.

In the case of HB1065, in exchange for a small measure of control over the property of his employer, the employee may not remove the firearm from the vehicle without the employer's consent, must take responsibility for ensuring the vehicle is secured, for ensuring the weapon is out of plain sight, and for ensuring that only weapons which the employee may legally possess are stored in the vehicle. That's a right with a responsibility attached. The prior status quo allowed an employer to exert control over an employee's private property, even while not located on the employer's private property, and in return the responsibility of the employer was... oh, how did bigus_D put it...

ABSOLUTELY NONE...

Seems a little one-sided to me.

 

[Phil502]

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.

My comment was more general then that, before that bill was signed into law, here in Indiana, it was not your right to have the firearm in your car. It has now been deemed that it is your right. The Constitution can not specifically address all situations but it does lay the groundwork for your protection, IMO, IANAL.

Phil