Let's see the evidence. In my world, the places with the most gun-related workplace injuries are gun-free zones: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Con-Agra Foods, Lockheed Martin, etc...
private property.
He said disgruntled workers who shoot people in the workplace are going to do so no matter what laws are on the books.Like some statements of a official piece of paper will stop somebody's rage. Geeze, another sitting duck situation.
result oriented rulings, how french.
However, there are to caveats:
1) The employer has no right to forbid firearms inside the person’s car as that is their private property.
2) The employer assumes full responsibility for their disarming policies. By that, I mean that if an employer chooses to require the disarming of employees, then they employer is LIABLE for any and all damages resulting from their failure to secure the employee from harm.
I work at a nuclear power plant, so you can imagine their policy on people carrying guns onto plant property. Problem is, with the security guards capping themselves, I’m more worried about THEM than I am some disgruntled employee.
By that, I'm guessing that they're saying the presence of guns in employees cars pose an occupational hazard to the employees. Well, I suppose that's possible, sure.
But if a study comes out demonstrating that guns in employee's cars actually reduce violence, injury, and death in the workplace, wouldn't it then be an OSHA requirement to have a gun? You know, like OSHA requires a back brace to reduce back injury if you're going to lift over X pounds?
Using OSHA as the justification for this law could have interesting and unintended consequences.
Simple solution: Never buy your gasoline at a Conoco Phillips gas station, especially at night! The liberal judge just put all the states gas station attendants and convenience store attendants on death watch. Another case of ‘the slippery slope’ to a world where only criminals have guns (oh, and the guy at the other end of 911 who MIGHT show up shortly after your death at the hands of said criminal).
However, employers have the right to have conditions of employment. If you don't like those conditions, don't work there.
The same attitude with smoking. If the establishment does not want smokers in/on his premises, that is his choice.
However, screw all the silly laws that dictate/mandate rules and conditions in the private sector. I am extremely Conservative and I hate the government. Leave us alone and let us manage our own lives.
(BTW, I carry, and smoke.)
I’ll bet that that judge has a gun at his workplace.
This is so clear even I can understand it. It’s private property.
I I as a property owner say no pink lacy underwearer is allowed on my property. That’s the way it is.
The first & second amendments were in place before this company built the facility.
but can customers be prohibited?
There are limits, for example an employeer can not forbid an employee from voting or from going to jury duty.
but can customers be prohibited?
There are limits, for example an employeer can not forbid an employee from voting or from going to jury duty.
I'm expected to abide by them, if I want to keep working there.
No, different in this case.
When an employer doesn’t allow guns to be locked in cars in their parking lots, they are preventing their employees the ability to defend themselfs on the trip to work, and the trip home (or wherever one goes after work). Will the company be responsible for any harm to the employees after they leave the parking lot? NO, of course not.
I’m sure the next post will say, “well, they can just get other off-company parking”. That is not always possible.
IMHO, if a company doesn’t want guns in cars in their parking lots, then let them set up a guard station at the entrance and let the employees check their guns on the way in and retrieve them on the way out. Otherwise, the company should completely indemnify the employees for any loss while they are dis-armed because of the company policy.