Again, I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interests.
***And I am amazed at how many absolutists there are who conveniently overlook the constitution, and that the constitution was in effect before any employer had property rights over a given piece of land.
Trespassing is a common law derived from English Common law, in effect long before the US Constitution was written.
Trespassing was illegal before the Constitution was written. There are cases of trespass in colonial times and medieval England. The law has undergone changes from the earliest days, but the concept of ownership and possessorary rights include the right to prohibit others the use of a thing that is owned. If I prohibit the use of my land to you because you are armed or ugly, you are still armed and ugly (hence your right to be armed or ugly is not infringed) you just do not have the right to enter my property.
The rights listed in the first 10 amendments are not an end all list nor are they the most important to many people. Rather our founding fathers included them because they were rights most often infringed upon by the crown.
Do you believe a company must allow an employee to distribute flyers or papers on company property? If not, why not? If, as you believe, a company can not prohibit certain speech at its work place how could it prohibit certain literature? What if the literature was advertisement for its competitor or highly guarded trade secrets?
Your position that a property owner cannot control who enters their property and on what conditions does not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.