General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen gunnuttery and anti-unionism collide: Howdy, Tennessee!
Right-to-work (e.g. "I can fire you for anything" meets Right-to-store-guns-in-company-parking-lot. Hilarity ensues!
NASHVILLE, TENN. A Tennessee employer could fire a worker who violates company policy by storing firearms and ammunition in vehicles parked on employers property despite a new state law, according to a state attorney generals opinion.
Gov. Bill Haslam in March signed the measure that would allow people with handgun carry permits to store firearms in their vehicles no matter where they are parked.
(snip)
While the letter stated the bill does not seek to alter the states employment-at-will doctrine, it noted that businesses could run into trouble if they seek to enforce a gun ban on their property.
Employers who terminate employees just for exercising this right may violate the states clear public policy that handgun carry permit holders are allowed to transport and store firearms or ammunition, the sponsors wrote....
Read More: http://www.theleafchronicle.com/viewart/20130529/NEWS01/305290019/AG-Gun-measure-doesn-t-affect-employment-law
You can't have it both ways, people!
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)"Buckle your seat belts. We're in for a bumpy ride."
Robb
(39,665 posts)...So to speak.
Initech
(100,129 posts)antigone382
(3,682 posts)If I don't want someone to bring a gun to my house, I have a right to tell them to leave their guns at home or else stay off my property, regardless of whether they have a right to carry. The same should be true for business owners.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just as an employer shouldn't get a say in what books or papers you keep in your car, under this law they don't get a say in what firearms you keep in your car, if you're licensed.
billh58
(6,635 posts)the right to determine whether you can park your car on their private property if it contains objectionable material, including books, papers, and guns. You can keep anything you want in your car, but you can't park your car on private property without the owner's consent.
As the poster you replied to stated, private property owners can determine who can, and can not enter their property, and set the rules for entry. And, as the AG in the story determined, the employer has the right to terminate anyone who violates the rules.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. a termination for having an Obama 2008 sticker on your car?
billh58
(6,635 posts)I would be "cool" with ANYTHING, but only stated how the law applies to private property. If I did not want you to park in my driveway with a Bible in your car, or a DU or an Obama bumper sticker on your car, that is my prerogative, just as it is with any private property owner. If you insist on disobeying my private property rules, you would be guilty of trespass.
Conversely, I could ban cars from parking in my driveway if they did NOT have a Bible in them, or if they did NOT sport DU or Obama bumper stickers.
Same with guns. The Second Amendment, and other civil rights such as "freedom of speech" do NOT apply on private property, but in the public venue where those rights can be regulated.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Thanks for that, I needed a chuckle.
Hint: there are things you can do as a homeowner that you can't do as an employer.
Robb
(39,665 posts)That's rather the entire point of the article.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I expect that if a case comes up (and you know it will), and if ruled against the employee, the leg will pass an amendment, strengthening the language of the bill.
billh58
(6,635 posts)never at a loss for being willfully obtuse. Please show me where I said that I was "cool" with any facts that I stated. The law is what it is, and shit is what it is -- shit. But then again as one of the leading NRA/Gungeoneers you would know all about shit, wouldn't you?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Feel free to try to set up the rules you mentioned for your home at your business.
Maybe an employee will educate you on the difference between the two.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Bubba. It appears that the Attorney General of Tennessee disagrees with you, so I'll just let you take it up with him.
Why do you suppose it is that privately owned businesses can post their property with "No Guns Allowed" signs, or reserve the right to refuse to serve loud-mouthed drunks, or fire employees for proselytizing during working hours? Why can an employer in a right-to-work state fire an employee for ANY reason?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Try hard, I know you can think of things an employer *can't* do or fire someone for.
billh58
(6,635 posts)state, an employer can fire an employee at will -- no reason whatsoever.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Don't try to walk back your statement now.
billh58
(6,635 posts)back, but I keep forgetting that you are a Gungeoneer and I need to type s l o w l y in order for you to grasp concepts. The reason can be anything, but the employee does not need to be given a reason.
Willfully obtuse, thy name is Gungeoneer.
Response to billh58 (Reply #35)
friendly_iconoclast This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)BTW, your continuing barrage of insults says rather less about your opponents than it does
about you...
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Right-to-work means joining the union is not a requirement of the job.
former9thward
(32,121 posts)An employer in a right to work state can fire someone for any legal reason --- not for ANY reason. For example an employer can't fire someone for being black. That is not legal anywhere. Since the legislature has passed a law I believe this will fall into that category. I don't agree with the AG opinion.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's a pretty flexible standard. Your employer doesn't have the right to tell you what to have stored in your own property no matter where you park it.
Every square inch of this country belongs to somebody. The difference between your driveway and your employer's parking lot is that employees are required to be on that lot. If somebody would prefer have a gun in the car to the pleasure of your company, they can simply leave. But the logistics of having a gun out of a car but not on the employer's lot would require the employee to go and get it on their own time, for which the employer would not pay. Not to mention the fact that they may have to drive through some pretty horrible neighborhoods at some pretty horrible times of the night to do so, or have you never had to work third shift in a factory on the wrong side of town? It's standard corporate risk dispersion at the expense of the 99%. Funny how slavish devotion to ideology can jump up and bite you on the ass, ain't it?
billh58
(6,635 posts)talking about a right to work state whose AG has stated that an employee can be fired for violating a "no gun in the car" rule on the employer's property. Go argue with the AG Bubba -- I'm just the messenger.
FWIW, where I work there is a posted sign that says "No guns allowed on this property." Anyone violating that rule will be arrested in a heartbeat.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and take it from me, nothing on this earth will keep some redneck from going home, getting a gun, and hunting you down with it. Whatever the law says and however it is interpreted will make no difference whatsoever. Even if they make it double secret illegal there will be guns in cars on employers parking lots.
The AG may or may not be full of shit, but they'll figure it out eventually. And the NRA will be there to litigate it with money they hoover out of people's pockets because of all the confusion.
I'll say it again: Your employer doesn't have the right to tell you what to have stored in your own property no matter where you park it. It may be legal to do so, but that doesn't make it right. I'm arguing the principle, not the law. The banksters didn't have the right to run the economy of the entire planet off a cliff either, but we wound up paying them to do it. This is a conflict of property rights issue. Can your employer tell what you can and cannot have in your car? Since you need a job, it's not right for them to use their power over your financial welfare to tell you what you can store on your own property. To do so is using the power of their property to trump your property rights and make you pay for it by compromising your time and security. Money wins again.
Here's an interesting book -
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369884881&sr=1-3&keywords=going+postal
An eye-opening look at the phenomenon of school and workplace shootings in America, Going Postal explores the rage-murder phenomenon that has plagued and baffled America for the last three decades, and offers some provocative answers to the oft-asked question, "Why?" By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings the author crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He presents many fascinating and unexpected cases in detail. Like slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context and thereby reveal their meaning.
When some guy loses his shit and shoots up his office, there will be a million reasons for his actions, not one of which alone would cause him to snap. But the accumulated injustices, slights, insults, dirty deals, manipulations, and all around fucking over by the 1% causes a tiny percent of people to go apeshit and do something violent and bloody. And when it happens everybody asks why and in response entire industries make money providing easy answers to complex problems that do nothing but tell people what they want to hear. And those industries are owned by the 1% as well.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)...my parents rented a rural cabin on the Delaware River North of Philadelphia where we lived. From mid-Spring through October we spent most weekends and some whole weeks relaxing without the distractions of city noise like traffic and sirens. We owned a small boat that we used for fishing and general recreation. We didn't miss electricity at all. My dad would have a radio to listen to the occasional baseball game. My dad was self employed and often took three or four day weekends. One of the decisions they would talk about was how many whole weeks of vacation he would take.
Fast forwarding to the last 25 years to my own family and our decisions we have little saved for retirement. My children, both in their mid twenties, don't work in their desired fields and in spite of liberal use of community colleges and extraordinary diligence in selecting reasonably priced additional schools and my own help, student loans are still being paid. My last "vacation" lasted almost 19 months. It cost $87,000 leaving me $21,000 in debt after my savings was exhausted. Our decisions were more often, "Can we afford to open 4 cans of tuna fish for dinner or only 3?"
The scope of opportunities has been limited and some tax laws have encouraged what I think of as more protectionist than economically encouraging. In the sixties when JFK cut taxes a bit to encourage economic expansion, it worked. Today, the wealthy get tax cuts and invest money either in banking/finance where risks are mitigated and the only jobs created are few high paying ones or they invest in outsourcing work to cheaper foreign markets. Both of these courses orphan the middle and lower income workers.
People are sick of it.
billh58
(6,635 posts)this legislation is to remove the necessity of an employee having to drive all the way home in order to get a gun and come back to shoot the place up when they are fired. That would give them too much time to think about it and possibly change their minds.
And besides, anyone paranoid enough to drive around with a gun in their car 24/7 couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone else. Right?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and you'll get seven examples of fired employees not changing their minds from
the first page alone...
billh58
(6,635 posts)changed their minds? What's that? It doesn't track those stats? If Google can't find it, it didn't happen I guess.
There's that NRA/Gungeon superior logic again, and it's sooooo impressive...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You do realize that, don't you?
billh58
(6,635 posts)a gun within easy reach vs. a drive home to get a gun? Seems on the same level as the stats that show the higher odds of gun death and injury in the home when a gun is present, would apply here as well. But then again, I'm sure that you have some gunner logic that shows that the more guns equals less gun violence. And then there's that government tyranny thing, and the citizen's militia club.
Whatever blows your dress up Bubba...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Better be careful with those glass pieces, because if one state rep has his way, you won't be able to pick up a replacement anywhere in Florida. A new bill floating through the Legislature seeks to ban pipes and bongs from retail outlets.
The legislation was filed last December. Right now, it's floating through various subcommittees. But this isn't the first time the state has cracked down on smoking devices that may -- possibly, if someone really wants, in an autonomous personal action completely outside the manufacturer's intentions and legal culpabilities -- be used to smoke illegal drugs. In 2010, the state passed a bill that limited paraphernalia sales to stores that made 75 percent of their income from tobacco sales.
"The new bill builds on the old bill," says Darryl Rouson, the St. Petersburg representative sponsoring the House bill. "Rather than just regulating them, let's just ban them. If we can make people drive to Georgia and Alabama and South Carolina to get fireworks, they can drive to get these utensils of death."
Undoubtedly Rep. Rouson also thinks the drive will make some change their minds...
The two of you will be glad to know that there are other 'improvers' out there trying to make
things difficult for those who persist on doing "bad" things:
http://www.theage.com.au/small-business/trends/moves-to-make-bongs-a-pipe-dream-20101204-18kse.html
...Ms Wooldridge said there would be an education period for retailers - essentially a transition period leading up to enforcement. ''This isn't about surprising retailers and penalising them for something they didn't know about. We will do our best that people are informed,'' Ms Wooldridge said.
She said the ban may take in other smoking paraphernalia, such as hash pipes, but would not include ''hubbly-bubbly pipes'', or hookahs, which are gaining popularity in Middle Eastern-themed cafes.
''This is about reducing access to cannabis-smoking, particularly for younger people not targeting people who undertake certain cultural practices,'' she said.
Bong retailers were scornful of the move. Jim Kouts, managing director of the Off Ya Tree chain - which has 16 stores across Australia and has been in business for 33 years - said the ban made no sense. ''During the prohibition of alcohol, they did not also seek to prohibit drinking glasses. It is exactly the same thing,'' he said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x378254
CORPUS CHRISTI - At Tuesday's city council meeting, city leaders banned the selling of all smokeable incense that cause a marijuana-like high, as well as the sale of devices like pipes.
At least one local smoke shop owner says the new ban will put her out of business.
Kim Davis of Mr. Nice Guys says, "It is going to hurt us tremendously."
For many years, smoke shops like hers have walked a careful line regarding the sale of controversial products like pipes and other smoking tools.
Tuesday, the city council opted to vote in the new ordinance banning the sale of K2 and Spice, but the ordinance didn't stop there.
"We came to city hall to talk about the K2 ban and it turns out that there is no longer a pipe, or chillum, or water pipe or anythying to be sold in Corpus Christi anymore," said Davis.
Of course, no one can show that these bans actually do anything besides forcing cannabis users to
MacGuyver up their own smoking devices, but that's beside the point, isn't it? -they've Done Something and struck a blow against what they consider a sinful practice...
SharonAnn
(13,781 posts)Actually, it could eliminate some of the hot-heads here in TN. As long as they don't get innocent bystanders. LOL, I almost wrote bartenders which reminds me of the next story.
A couple of years ago, a bill was approved here in TN permitting people to carry guns in bars. However, if they are carrying a gun they're not allowed to drink. What could possibly go wrong?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I imagine that TN's permit holders are typical of those in other states- likely they are charged with crimes at a much lower rate than the general public.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)This removes any kind of objective criteria for deciding whether a piece of legislation / rule / regulatory scheme is effective or not. If crime goes down, the diminishing pool of victims is just as large to the absolutist who holds this position ("One death from guns is one death too many." Even if crime goes up, the justification of "Well, we dont know how many more might have died without this" is given credence. Strange how a failure of a regulation can lead to more of the same.
I do conflate the "if just one.." philosophy with the "one death is too many.." mantra, because it seems if you point out that the incidence of a particular crime is down, its often followed by the second phrase.
There seems to be a disconnect between goal, action, and consequence. Its as though there is a measure of faith involved. "If this doesnt work, we must not be doing enough. I know that if we do this, eventually lives will be saved." Rarely is there serious discussion about whether or not the approach can reasonably be expected to result in the goal, its "obvious" to those proposing action that A should lead to B. No rational discussion about the effectiveness of a law can be tolerated- those who do are painted as being against saving lives, or for killing innocents. In the absolutists mind, its all or none.
Theres also a disturbing ends justifies the means mentality involved. The lengths that these proponents are willing to go seems to know no bounds. Random pat-downs of the public, government tracking of ammunition sales, government tracking of guns via lojack type transmitters, door-to-door searches of those living in public housing- all have been proposed in the last year or two in various discussion forums; the same kind of thinking brought us Guantanamo, torture, and warrant-less wiretapping. Im not equating strict gun control to these, just noting that in the heads of those who propose such actions, justification is clear and absolute. "Just one life..", "One death is too many."
No consideration is given to unintended consequences. The burden on anyone else is considered inconsequential compared to the "saving of a single life". Never mind that the trust placed in the governments hands today can and most likely will be abused tomorrow under a different administration. It always amazes me that our party is usually so adamant in its protection of all amendments in the bill of rights except one. The same kind of incrementalism that the other side uses to infringe the other nine amendments- our own party tries to use those same tactics on the second.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Maybe the employers will think twice about canning employees.
Who knows. Sounds like a recipe for death to me.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)Firing a fella for having a gun in his glove compartment could prove an interesting business....
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Firing a fella and not knowing they are packing a weapon could prove an interesting business....
Wonder what would happen if all the Union Members would start carrying. I bet the laws would get changed REAL FUCKING QUICK. Fucking KOCK brothers.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)It would be best if they pointed the things in the right direction....
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)Its a compromise of rights and interests. They aren't many problems with it, at least in my state.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)There are legal reasons you can't fire people - for their religion, race, etc and what they are seeking is that same protection.
Not sure why people who guns would want to leave them in their cars at work though. If I owned one I wouldn't for fear of someone stealing it (criminals tend to operate on opportunity).
billh58
(6,635 posts)is "legally" true, but in actual practice hard to enforce. In a right-to-work (at will employment) state, the employer does not need to specify a "reason" for termination. It is up to the terminated employee to prove that he or she was fired based on religion, race, etc., and the employees who don't even bother to contest their termination far outnumber those who do.
It ain't right, but it's true.
you certainly know how to turn over the rocks Robb. They're scurrying all over the place.