|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 28, 2011, 04:56 PM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Quote:
Negotiation is viewed as a sign of weakness by psychopaths. Corporate bullying can be profitable. What did the insurance company have to loose with bullying?: nothing. Insurance companies do this all the time, deny expensive claims and wait for the victim to spend time and money in legal fees. If only one in a hundred or one in a thousand cannot marshal the resources for the legal fight, the Corporation makes additional profit. Why do Pizza delivery companies forbid their drivers from carrying? Pizza delivery is the fifth most hazardous job in the US. Criminals whack Pizza delivery men all the time. Here is one from the Oct 14. http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/ne...nt-2218523.php Just Google the topic to see how many Pizza Delivery men are robbed. http://www.google.com/#ds=n&pq=pizza...4&bih=616&bs=1
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
|
October 28, 2011, 05:49 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Yes, corporate bullying is what prevents unnecessary losses of profits. Pizza deliverymen packing heat is something that will never happen, will it? such a huge liability, having those armed couriers running loose on company business.
It's rather unfortunate, IMO, that businesses can't come up with some reasonable arrangement whereby they completely absolve themselves from liability if a worker is a licensed to carry, so that worker can exercise the right to safety. It is reasonable for a business to want to shield itself from a million dollar lawsuit because a cart pusher packing a glock in his boxers caps a "child rapist" who was actually just a strung out dad trying to jam his mentally ill adolescent daughter into a car. It is a no-win situation. If they allow it, or even give a wink and a nod, or if they fail to discharge people who do carry weapons, they open a chink in the legal armor. Seriously, there is no way that common ground can be reached in this legal situation, where an employer can be held accountable for the actions of their employees. Like I said in an earlier post, the only real answer if you can't find a company that allows concealed carry, is to violate, prepare to be fired, and hope for the best. Does it ever bother any of you guys to walk into a gun store and see all of the employees openly packing on their belts? One of the companies here allowed employees to carry. I nearly choked one day when I went in and saw a guy I knew in there with an 8 inch barreled revolver, probably a colt python hanging on his belt. The guy was a nut, I'd known him for years, and I would never have even gone to a range with him, much less worked next to him if he was armed. He was working there part time. He was a student teacher, and I believe pretty strongly that he packed a large pistol in his brief case to class. This was back in 1977, so teaching wasn't a terribly hazardous job. |
October 28, 2011, 06:24 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 123
|
I had to come back in here and mention something
LAWS are not what people are talking about breaking here. It is not ILLEGAL to carry in most places where it's just against company policy.
One more time for the cheap seats: YOUR BOSS CAN'T THROW YOU IN JAIL FOR BREAKING HIS RULES. Federal property? That's a lot different. We're talking about LAWS vice "rules". You guys are acting like sheep. Do you all really follow every single "RULE" your boss enacts at the workplace? Honesty here is key. |
October 28, 2011, 06:37 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
keep in mind that some states have some pretty broad legal restrictions to where you can carry. here, only professional LE officers are allowed to carry weapons into govt buildings, not employees, and they will be prosecuted as this is specifically covered by law. I believe that a ban on carrying into places where alcohol was served was tried here but failed.
|
October 28, 2011, 06:53 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
I can field that situation! Employer: "We need to search your car." Employee: OK, but you need to get a warrant and do it legally. Employer: Your fired! Employee: OK, Put it in writting that you fired me because you refused to do a legal search. |
|
October 28, 2011, 07:21 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 123
|
And ten you ave a valid
wrongful termination suit.
This of course would cost your employer enough that maybe the lesson would be learned. |
October 28, 2011, 10:06 PM | #82 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 28, 2011, 10:20 PM | #83 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,971
|
Quote:
An employer doesn't need a warrant to legally search your car. Just like the police, they can ask permission to search your vehicle and if you say yes then the search is legal. You don't have to say yes in either case, but if you refuse to give your employer permission to search your vehicle while its parked in the employer's lot in a right to work/at will employment state then he can legally fire you for your refusal. You can always sue, but the courts haven't taken the employees' side in any of the cases I'm aware of. So you'd just compound your financial difficulties by adding legal bills to pay on top of being unemployed. One option is to park off the employer's property. The employer can counter by making it against official company policy to park off the property. Like my employer does. Another option is to change employers. Obviously that's not an attractive option in today's economy. Another option, if there's sufficient support, is to get a law passed that makes it illegal to fire an employee for having a legally possessed firearm in a locked, private vehicle that's parked in the company lot. That's been done in Florida, Oklahoma and Texas, possibly elsewhere. Interestingly enough, the employer can still fire you for refusing to allow the search, but if he finds a legal firearm he can't fire you for that. Of course, from a practical perspective, an employer in a right to work/at will employment state can always fire you for something else and then it would be up to you to prove that you were fired illegally for having a firearm in your vehicle and not for some other reason. If you couldn't then you'd be without a job and with legal bills on top of it.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
October 28, 2011, 10:45 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
|
I live in Texas where our government has made it ILLEGAL for an employer to tell you such things as it should be. God bless our state on this issue <...deleted...>
Last edited by JohnKSa; October 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM. Reason: . |
October 29, 2011, 01:49 AM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
|
serf'rett
Quote:
Lastly, I think you are correct about respecting the laws of military installations. One would be ill-advised to think it would be ok to skirt that law if they don't have a legal reason. There access laws can change frequently depending on what level of threat the country is on too(like whether a license is enough to get on with a vehicle sticker), but the firearm bit is pretty solid.
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan) |
|
October 29, 2011, 01:55 AM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
|
barbilly
Quote:
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan) |
|
October 29, 2011, 07:31 AM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
October 29, 2011, 07:48 AM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 857
|
Quote:
I would hope that your employees would show you the same respect for your property that your showing for their's! |
|
October 29, 2011, 08:47 AM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
If I worked for an employer who cared about such things, I'd probably carry an LCP in deep concealment where there was no chance of it accidentally being exposed. Then I'd put an Obama sticker on my car, and whenever coworkers bring up the subject of firearms in casual conversation I would bring up the subject of all the children needlessly killed by those evil guns.
|
October 29, 2011, 09:22 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 955
|
I fired a guy who carried at work. It was a large big box retail store. A customer reported it to me. If you dont like the rules go work some where else. I carry but not at work. In that type of setting seeing armed staff makes people very nervous or upset to say the least. It was in a nice area of town and never had any problems. If you dont like the rules they have then dont work there. I would NEVER ask to search a car. I dont car what they have in their car. Nor would just about any other workplace uless you work at a nuke plant or the pentagon or any other super high security place. Who here has had their car searched at work
__________________
Colt King Cobra .357 Colt Anaconda .44mag Springfield Armory .45 Double stack Loaded XD40 service XD45 Taurus 617 .357mag Smith M&P 40 |
October 29, 2011, 09:32 AM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Posts: 389
|
" One option is to park off the employer's property. The employer can counter by making it against official company policy to park off the property. Like my employer does. "
Does you employeer give any reasons as to why this rule exists? What if someone drops you off at work , take a bus or taxi, does the bus have to stay in the lot? |
October 29, 2011, 09:35 AM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Location: Brazos County, Texas
Posts: 1,038
|
I had a altercation with a customer at work that could have gone real bad,and my pistol was in my truck thirty feet away.That's when I decided to get a CHL. My employeer said they don't think firearms should be at the workplace. I replied...If the situation arises again and I am denied the right to carry my legally concealed firearm and I am killed.....I hope you like my wife...cause she'll be your new partner. I now carry a Ruger LCP in my hip pocket and spare clip in my front pocket.
|
October 29, 2011, 09:45 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Posts: 389
|
. . hit send too soon. .
I see two seperate carry / in car carry situations. High risk of BG attack and low risk. High risk would be somewhere that no or minimal screening of people occurs and there are no real laws that can put you in jail for carry. The no carry rules exist in a optimistic attempt to prevent robberies / attacks. I would rather see a rule that prohibits offensive use of weapons while allowing defensive use. Low risk would be a fed building with metal detectors / mil base / high security facility where those that enter are screened and the chance of a being a victim of street crime is nonexistent. Violating a carry rule here can get you sent to jail. |
October 29, 2011, 10:00 AM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The obvious solution is to lobby for laws preventing such employer discretion. Those opposed can join the companies in opposing such for venial, monetary concerns.
Note companies have to follow all other sorts of mandates. The right to protecting one's life trumps protecting the boss' finances in most moral philosophies.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 29, 2011, 10:05 AM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
It is "at will employment" not "right to work." "Right to work" deals with required union membership. At will employment is used in most states, but a contracts can still exist, and some states have 'public policy' exceptions (you cannot fire an employee for certain specific things that are 'public policy'). Unless their is a state law protecting you, your employer does not need a warrant to search your car that is on his property. In an 'at will' state absent a contract you can be fired for almost ANY reason (the employer must not discriminate against 'protected groups' though). Failing to allow a search that you most likely put on notice about in the employee handbook is grounds for termination; Insubordination is ground for termination. You can also quit at any time without notice (though you may have a hard time getting a decent reference) if you do not have an employment contract and are 'at will.' |
|
October 29, 2011, 11:32 AM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,323
|
Yes, employers make those rules for their buildings, company cars and parking lots.
Simply stated this is usually not the employer's rule per say. It is likely a rule forced on them by their insurance policies or legal team. So they post, add it to the manual, etc. Now, let's look at enforcement. They rarely enforce these rules because of the implications. For example, they have a right to search all cars, but never search inner circle management cars. Even if I say Joe has a gun in his car, they will likely not forcefully search Joe's car. They won't because it brings up the question why they don't search all cars. I guess what I'm saying is the to defend a policy, you have to prove that you are enforcing it consistently. Likely Joe will be fired because he is late 2 days in one month, his management doesn't like him, and he was seen or reported to have been carrying a gun on company property. He will be fired for attendance because they have fired regularly for that. His management not liking him will be the driver for enforcing attendance. The gun thing will be backup if he proves in court that the attendance thing is BS. Related to search requests. ALWAYS say NO if you have something to hide. Being fired for saying no to a search will open up their policy books and enforcement record to your legal team. Since in most states it is difficult to fire for something other than attendance and continuous insubordination, they will likely not go through with the firing. They will likely resort to a lesser punishment and keep you on. Still, your management will not be on your side at that point, so you have to get another job in the next 3 months or you will find issues with insubordination, expense reporting and attendance which you didn't know you had. I'm sorry that this is how we live. The reason you always say no to the search is that being fired for refusing a search is much easier for your legal team to defend. I'm not a lawyer, so take this for what it is worth. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that they must show consistency in the policies or they are being used to create a harassing work environment. "Why are you singling me out and harassing me?," is a great question to ask when this comes up. In general, the law is on the employee's side related to issues of discrimination and creation of a harassing work environment. Admin people are very well trained on these boundaries and will work slow to build a "firing" case. You need to be slow and thoughtful about answers you provide them as they will all be used against you. Good luck and make good choices. |
October 29, 2011, 12:06 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Suing your employer sounds dandy after you are fired but:
1. Who is paying your lawyer? Will a lawyer take your case on contingency? Probably not - the big bucks are in large class action suits. 2. Your company has resources to keep you in court for quite a long time. Who is paying the bills then? You have to eat. Who will hire you in the mean time? If you make money on another job - your damages are limited to the little time you are out of work. Not much to go on. We've talked about the lawsuit threat before - it is not an easy road as nonlawyers speculate. That's why we had our lawyer members analyze the threat. Look at the time and energy in the Walmart gender discrimination cases. You going to take on a large company by yourself? Nope - again - the solution is legislative action.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 29, 2011, 02:42 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
This is not law enforcement or discrimination. They are allowed a huge amount of latitude in what they do, as long as it is not discrimination against a' protected class.' |
|
October 29, 2011, 05:32 PM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Everybody wants to sue. Suing is like winning the lottery if you win. JACKPOT!
Of course nobody really wants to put in the time to lobby their state and federal representatives for changes in the law. Such law changes could take years and years and several sessions of congress. That might take too much time and they want to win their jackpot now! Instead of suing the company or changing the law to make carry at work legal by choice over the wishes of business which business (especially rich and powerful big business) will fight tooth and nail, it might be a lot easier to change the law such that businesses are not liable for the use of firearms carried legally by employees. Absolving the businesses from liability would go a long way toward many businesses allowing such weapons at work and businesses may be inclined to support such legislation because it reduces their encumberance.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
October 29, 2011, 09:42 PM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2011
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 2,834
|
Quote:
If you worked at the post officer = law cannot carry work at a fast food place/big box mart = policy Policy doesn't put you in jail, its law. As others state what do you risk, your life or your job? I know one guy he works on base which you cannot carry. He told a story once to some others and I, he came off base once and his check light came on he went to the nearest gas station and some guy randomly came up to him, he put his hand in his back pocket to reach for a "gun" which he didnt have. The guy said CHILL OUT! and left. You don't know when something will happen or not, you may never need your gun, you might be on your way home from work and trouble strikes. You dont know. I almost had to use my gun a few times already(on animals/wild animals) I know a guy who was with his friend, both of them got attacked and they had to draw. The people got arrested (they where drunk) I forget the whole story but there was like 6 of them and 2 or 3 got arrested. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|