Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

[divemedic]

This law has nothing to do with whether or not a property owner can trump rights. The question here (when talking about the law) is whether or not the government has the POWER AND AUTHORITY to pass a law restricting a land owner from controlling the behavior of persons on that property.

The answer is yes, the government does indeed have that power and authority, again proven by fire codes, handicapped parking, utility rights of way, and anti-discrimination law.

 

[siglite]

Of course that answer is yes. But you'll not see me applauding government intrusion into private property. Even when I agree with a particular intrusion.

 

[JohnKSa]

But you'll not see me applauding government intrusion into private property.

So "private property" = "public parking lot" to you?

And you consider it "government intrusion" when there's a law that prevents my employer from firing me if I won't let them search my vehicle or for the legal objects I have in my car while it's parked in the public parking lot?

The bottom line is that this isn't about "property rights", this is about "employer power". A company can't go out and conduct forced searches of customer's vehicles simply because those vehicles are in the public parking lot owned/controlled by the company--in fact, the idea is ridiculous.

The issue is NOT that they own the lot and are worried about controlling their property. The issue is that they want to maintain control over their employees. They know they can search my car, NOT because it's parked in the public lot they own/control but because I'm an employee and they know I have to let them if I want to remain employed.

How about if we stop pretending that this is a government intrusion into property rights and admit what it actually is. This is about people pushing for a law that prevents employers from enforcing tyrannical policies against their employees.

 

[siglite]

So "private property" = "public parking lot" to you?

I must have been sorely confused. I didn't realize we were talking about a municipal parking lot owned by the government. (Hint, we're not. We're talking about a parking lot owned by a corporation or individual)

And you consider it "government intrusion" when there's a law that prevents my employer from firing me if I won't let them search my vehicle or for the legal objects I have in my car while it's parked in the public parking lot?

Actually, yes, I do. Assuming it's a privately owned parking lot. But you seem confused. At no point were we talking about a municipal or state owned parking lot. This whole thread has been about private parking lots.

The bottom line is that this isn't about "property rights", this is about "employer power".

No kidding it's about control. I like control over what happens on my property. I often work with and handle very sensitive information. And I may require as a condition of employment, that my folks, or any contractors who likewise handle this information subject themselves, their computers, their cell phones, and yes their cars to searches for devices which may contain that information without authorization.

And this leads me to believe you need to do some reading.

A company can't go out and conduct forced searches of customer's vehicles simply because those vehicles are in the public parking lot owned/controlled by the company--in fact, the idea is ridiculous.

See, I'm convinced that you're VERY confused. You need to go somewhere and learn the difference between private and public. (Hint: Private means owned by an individual, corporation, or other non-government organization. Public means it's owned by the government.)

This leads to an amusing contradiction in your condemnation of reality as "ridiculous." You should be aware, that employees enter into agreements with their employers every single day in this country (perfectly legal and binding agreements) that grant their employer the right to search their vehicles on company property. I'm sorry you find it ridiculous. But it simply is. And I'm fine with it. I think it's perfectly ok for a private corporation to search employees for stolen material or fire the employee for failure to consent to search, PROVIDED that this has been agreed to by the employee in advance. Perhaps as a condition of employment. No one FORCED that employee to sign the agreement. They can work elsewhere.

How about if we stop pretending that this is a government intrusion into property rights and admit what it actually is. This is about people pushing for a law that prevents employers from enforcing tyrannical policies against their employees.

Oh, it's a little bit of both if you strike the word "tyrannical" from your position. You are not forced at gunpoint to sign that agreement. You would never be forced at gunpoint to work for me. No one is threatening to imprison your wife and children if you don't work at my place of business. So, I think you're playing it fast and loose with this "tyranny" thing. Tyranny applies to governments with a monopoly on force. Sony corporation is not rounding up employees at gunpoint, forcing them to work for them, and then forcibly searching their cars. Not even Disney's quite that evil. Yet.

That's the beauty of America and the definition of freedom. As an employer, I'm free to have my draconian policies. As a potential employee, you are free to say my policies are ... "tyranny" ... as misguided as that may be, and move on to seek employment elsewhere. I do love a free market. Someplace would have to be a pretty DAMNED good place to work before I'd sign away my 2a rights while on corporate property. But I have to admit, there are some jobs I'd do it for. Some that I have done it for. Did I like it? Well, no, of course not. But I didn't have to do it. In a country with so much opportunity, why not just work somewhere that doesn't suck?

 

[dalepres]

The chauvinist, arrogant, jerk in the executive offices does as much damage to the idea of capitalism as Dianne Fienstien. They serve to alienate fully half of the voting base. I hold them in equal contempt.

My employer should not have the option of searching me or my vehicle.

 

[JohnKSa]

I must have been sorely confused. I didn't realize we were talking about a municipal parking lot owned by the government. (Hint, we're not. We're talking about a parking lot owned by a corporation or individual)

The parking lot is open to the public, it is not gated, there is no charge to park. That's a public parking lot by any reasonable interpretation of the term. I made it abundantly clear by stating multiple times in my post that the lot was owned/controlled by the company in question. If there's confusion I am not the one confused nor is it reasonable to misunderstand what I have said. Your definition of the term "public" is so extremely narrow as to be incorrect--consult a dictionary if you're in doubt of the veracity of this statement.

I like control over what happens on my property.

You're still ignoring the primary issue and pretending this is about property.

It is not about property and here's why.

1. A property owner doesn't have the level of control discussed here over what happens in their parking lot unless the person involved is contracted to the property owner in some way. One can't go out and search cars in his lot just because it's his property. He can only search his employees cars because if they don't comply he can fire them. It's not about property, it's about the ability to force employees to knuckle under.

2. The control affects more than just what happens in the parking lot, it's about what happens from the time a person leaves their home to go to work until they return home from work that evening. It's not about the company's property, it's about what happens to the employee from the time they walk out their door until the time they walk back into their home that evening.

3. Vehicles are private property, in fact, for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home. A vehicle does not become the company's property because it's parked in the company parking lot. It's not about controlling private property because if private property is sacrosanct then private vehicles would clearly enjoy the same protection.

I think we can dispense with the red herring that this is a "property rights" debate. If it were, this whole issue would be moot since it's about what goes on in employees' private property (i.e. their vehicles).

This is purely about the level of control that is reasonable for an employer to exert on employees.

I think it's perfectly ok for a private corporation to search employees for stolen material or fire the employee for failure to consent to search, PROVIDED that this has been agreed to by the employee in advance.

Are you really trying to equate theft with the legal posession of a firearm in a private vehicle?

If there is evidence of ILLEGAL activity then a search seems perfectly reasonable. But that's not what this is about. This is about searching for LEGALLY owned, LEGALLY carried items with the intent to punish the employee if such items are found.

You want this to look like it's reasonable (i.e. We have to be able to catch thieves.) when it's really not (i.e. I need to see if there are legal items in a person's car that, in my personal opinion, shouldn't be there; if I find any such items I will take that person's income and employee benefits from them and from their family).

You are not forced at gunpoint to sign that agreement.

If you strike the words "at gunpoint" from your statement then that statement is absolutely false. After I had worked for my current employer for years they implemented this policy. I was forced to sign the agreement in exactly the same way I am forced to comply with the parking lot policy. i.e. Do it or you lose your investment of time in this company, you will probably be forced to move, you may be forced to accept poorer benefits, you will probably end up with a lower standard of living.

No, I wasn't forced "at gunpoint", but the compliance was hardly voluntary.

In a country with so much opportunity, why not just work somewhere that doesn't suck?

Because I like where I live. Because it's near family. Because the gun laws are reasonable. Because the benefits I get are quite good. Because I have unusual and specialized work experience as well as an unusual skill set which means that finding work in a desirable area would be difficult or impossible.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY because there's no guarantee that after I moved to another company it wouldn't enact a similar policy. After all, the company where I currently work didn't have such a policy when I hired on.

Do I HAVE to work there? Of course not, but it's incorrect to imply that my compliance is purely voluntary.

In fact it's illogical to imply that having to change jobs is trivial while at the same time arguing that it's important for employers to retain the right to force an employee to change jobs in this situation. If just picking up and getting another job is no big deal for an employee then this law is also no big deal since it only affects the ability of an employer to make an employee get another job.

 

[wristtwister]

My question is simple... where does property rights give a landowner the right to dictate to others what legal rights they have on the landowner's property? My assumption has always been that your constitutional rights followed you anywhere you went, and when they were in conflict with a landowner's desires, the constitution trumped.

A lot of this trend started with school boards, who began dictating which rights existed on "school property" to students, and by extension, to adults... so now, everybody seems to think that because they own the property title that they can dictate what rights you have there. I've always been of the opinion that your only dictatorial power on your property was to allow someone there or tell them to leave.

Our company has a policy that says "you must allow a company representative to search your vehicle, or it is considered insubordination, and you can be terminated or disciplined for refusing to allow a search of your person or car". My take on that is easy... they can look in the windows, open the doors, and look all they want... if they open the glove box or console, they better have a warrant and be charging me with a crime. The police can't open those without one, and I fail to see where my employer has any right to search anything the police can't.

When I brought that up to HR in a meeting, they said that "they had the right to search anything or anyone on the property", and my argument was simple... I believe that as a "political opinion", I have a right to have a gun in my car, and South Carolina has a state law that no one can be fired or disciplined for political opinions... in fact, it is a criminal offense to do so, and anyone issuing orders to discipline or fire someone for their political opinion can be jailed for up to 6 months... so I put them on notice that they may assume anything they wish, it's my political opinion that my rights don't stop at the property line, and that as a licensed ccw holder, I am legally carrying a gun, even on my person in my car... which is another state law that was recently passed (ccw holders may carry concealed in their own cars).

What they better know, is that I would have them arrested for that in a skinny minute, so while the arguments are strong for both sides, the law is actually on my side... and could put them in jeopardy for millions in civil liability. Imagine the class action suit of 12-15,000 employees sueing for civil rights violations...

WT

 

[divemedic]

Answer this-

Let's say that I own the largest business in town. I employ nearly 1 out of every 10 persons in a 40 mile radius. If my business were to close, this would mean that 1 out of every 3 persons within 60 miles would be unemployed. For this reason, I get many state law exemptions, and I even am granted law making ability in my city.

I pass a set of rules that state:

Persons who enter my property for any reason are:

1 Prohibited from wearing or possessing any item of clothing (even in their locked automobile) which covers the upper torso if they happen to be female, and;

2 females on my property for any reason are required to perform any sexual act that a company executive shall request, and;

3 employees are required to work for any rate of pay, or no pay at all, and;

4 the employee retirement fund is hereby dissolved, all employees who have contributed to it have no claim to those funds.

Anyone who does not like it is free to leave my property and employ, but this rules will be strictly enforced.

Would you still support it?

What if I got the state to declare my property, and the property around it, to be a regional government district with lawmaking abilities? The commissioners who pass the laws of this district are chosen by ballot, one vote for every acre of property you own within the district. Since I own 10,000 acres within the district, and everyone else in the district owns 8,000 acres combined, all of the commissioners of the district are my representatives.

That last paragraph is what Disney has done in Florida. (Google Reedy Creek Improvement District) Tell me again how Disney is fighting for anyone's rights except their own.

 

[M203Sniper]

This is not a "bring guns to work" it is an employee right to self defense law.

 

[dalepres]

My take on that is easy... they can look in the windows, open the doors, and look all they want... if they open the glove box or console, they better have a warrant and be charging me with a crime. The police can't open those without one, and I fail to see where my employer has any right to search anything the police can't.

You forget one thing. They can search your trunk and glove box without opening your vehicle: they use dogs.

And they get the local police department to do it for them - even though local and state laws prohibit the police from doing work for private companies. It happens where I work all the time.

 

[texas bulldog]

However, I will concede that Texas Bulldog touches upon what makes this discussion very gray. He's right that the car is still his property. He's wrong, however, that employees are immune to having their vehicles searched. Go apply at Boeing. You'll find quite quickly that a searches of your vehicle are in black and white in the employment agreement. Your failure to consent to such search, by your own agreement, is grounds for instant and immediate termination. And the courts will back Boeing.
(I have nothing against Boeing, I just happen to know that this language is in their employment agreements.)
And isn't there a big ruckus being stirred up by a guy at Disney that was fired for not allowing them to search? (had a gun in the car).

i would agree employers have a legal ability, as the law currently stands. i would not agree they have a right.

 

[scurtis_34471]

My car does not become your property if I park it in your driveway. If the state legislature were smarter, they would have left the gun part out of the equation entirely and simply said that employers could not demand to search an employee's car as a condition of employment. Problem solved.