Why does the letter have to be misleading? What's Hammer's point in making it misleading?While the letter is misleading and more than likely doesn't apply to any of us as we don't work at Publix, it doesn't make it any less important.
I was only clarifying that this particular law only applies to employees keeping their weapons in their vehicles.
We still need to fight this one. We can't ignore it simply because we don't work at Publix or Disney or Georgia Pacific. While boycotting Publix won't work for some of us, there are other ways to voice your displeasure. Like bogie said, politely tell the manager your displeasure.
These guys need our help with this regardless of where we all work.
I think we need to be very careful about encroaching on someone else's rights. Publix, within constitutional and reasonable limits, has a right to direct activities on their property.
It's a slightly complicated issue, of course, but right now I see the rightness of Publix, Disney, Georgia Pacific, and mom/pop businesses to control their property in a way they see fit, as long as it is constitutional, legal and fair.
And, as a consumer, I don't really want to pay higher prices for products I buy if the retailers are somehow forced to go along with arbitrary rights that are simply fabricated by employees. Property rights, within obvious limitations, rule. If the employees want to negotiate some new rights with employers or if someone wants to pass a constitutional amendment to change the status quo, fine. That's the way to do it.