(OK) Whirlpool dropping out of suit?

[mons meg]

Hmm, the original Whirlpool thread shows locked? Anyway, I was just checking out a thread on packing.org, and saw an email response to an indivudual complaining about Whirlpool's suit.

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail Whirlpool Corporation and express your concerns. We appreciate your comments regarding Whirlpool Corporation's legal involvement in Oklahoma's recent amendment to the State's Firearms and Self Defense Acts. There have been some important developments since the company filed its challenge to the amendment October 9. Based on a subsequent legal briefing from Oklahoma's Attorney General that clarifies the amendment's impact on our company, Whirlpool has withdrawn from the case. The Attorney General's briefing indicates that the new law should not be interpreted as restricting Whirlpool's right or ability to manage its workplace safety programs—which was the key concern prompting the company to file the legal challenge. Whirlpool originally filed the legal action out of concern for the amendments potential impact on the company's ability to provide a safe environment for its employees in Tulsa—and not on constitutional issues. As of Tuesday, November 22, the company is no longer involved in the case. Whirlpool Corporation is a manufacturer and marketer of quality home appliances and is not interested in channeling its resources toward court action that has nothing to do with the company's core business and operations. Thank you for taking time to contact us.

Anyone heard anything else about this? Certainly good news for most CWL holders here. Except for me, I work on a military post...

 

[Werewolf]

Whirlpool dropping out is moot.

Last week in the first step of the process a judge (don't know whether it was fed or state - heard on radio) found for the plaintiffs.

The law that prohibits companies from prohibiting employees from having firearms locked in their personal autos on company property was found unconstitutional because it unfairly infringed property owner's rights.

I don't know if the OK state AG is going to appeal or not.

For now if a company says no guns in locked cars of employees on their parking lots then no guns it is.

 

[Smurfslayer]

I wonder what the OK AG opined...

And, in exactly what capacity...

All major corporations I'm aware of ban weapons under the "safe work environment" guise, while at the same time, spending only token money on security. Another common thread is a ban on weapons

"while on company business, travelling on company business, visiting client sites, etc."

The AG probably said something to the effect of "sure <wink, wink> you can still ban guns in the office... and your parking lot"...

One thing for sure, this won't go away overnight, you can bet your last dollar that companies like AOhelL will thumb their nose at this law until sued and defeated.

 

[HankB]

The law that prohibits companies from prohibiting employees from having firearms locked in their personal autos on company property was found unconstitutional because it unfairly infringed property owner's rights.

Hmmm . . . what about the laws that mandate handicapped access? Or the laws that require fire exits? Or the laws that require separate restrooms for men and women? Don't all of these infringe on a property owner's rights?

 

[Standing Wolf]

My right to defend my life from criminal predation trumps employers' rights to practice anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

 

[41 Redhawk]

My right to defend my life from criminal predation trumps employers' rights to practice anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

You are exactly right. Stay off their property. I don't like their policy either but we do have choices.

 

[Moparmike]

Aside from the self-protection issue, how is my car (which is my personal property, and in some states, an extension of my home) looked at in a legal environment when moved to another parcel of property, with the owner's permission?

What can and cant they dictate on their property, when it comes to other's property?

No muddin' tires?
No SUV's?
No "ferrign" cars?
No DNC stickers?
No rims larger than 16", unless stock?
No clear taillenses and corner-lenses?
No tinted windows? (have to be able to see in, afterall )
No Honor Student stickers, to make sure no one feels that their son is an underachiever?
No "my son can beat up your honor student" stickers, so that no one feels for the safety of their children?
No one may come to work with an empty seat (mandatory carpooling)?


What's next? Where does this end? :banghead:

 

[c_yeager]

What can and cant they dictate on their property, when it comes to other's property?

They have the same rights on their property that you have on yours. As such they SHOULD be able to pick and choose whatever criteria they see fit just as I can with my own driveway.

 

[NavajoNPaleFace]

c yeager pretty much said what I would've said.

I, as a legal property owner, have a rule....well, actually several:

1. Leave your dog in your vehicle. It causes my two to go nuts and I get tired of picking up your dog's crap, anyway.

2. Please don't come around after 10PM. The fact that you do not sleep is not a reason to disrespect my right to.

3. Lay off that horn when you pull in my driveway. In addition to noise pollution laws it's just plain rude.

4. I don't care if you chew or dip but please don't don't spit on my stone patio or cement. If you insist on doing so you'll get wet as I hose it off.

5. There are no signs on my property giving directions for using it for your shortcuts. Walk or drive around like everyone else.

6. Don't fix that loud or missing muffler on that rusted ol' rattling truck of yours. I think the two sounds create such pleasing harmony.

7. Sure you can turn around in my driveway any time ya like. I only put that 'Private Drive' sign up one day because I was bored.

8. If the door is closed it means I prefer you use the door bell. Just bustin in might get you a surprise you weren't expecting.

9. Everything here is mine. You do not have implied permission to take whatever you want.

10. The fence you see is not decorative. It was put there because I don't want YOU there.

Well, those are some rules I DID have until some group of people decided there needed to be a law, or laws, saying I, as a property owner, do not have rights.

Think about it.

I really do get weary when I read or hear of people being ticked off because a property owner (regardless if it's commercial or private....no such thing as public) exercises his/her/their rights.

As it was said, briefly, people have choices of not patronizing a company or a person for their anti-second amendment views. But they still have as much right as those for the second amendment.

Those radical enough to think otherwise wouldn't observe my property rules either, LOL.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

As such they SHOULD be able to pick and choose whatever criteria they see fit just as I can with my own driveway.

So where do you live that there are no building codes? Carport too close to the street? Tear it down, friend. Doors 38 in. wide, for wheelchairs dontchanow [doesn't matter tnat no one in my family needs one]. Railings have to be 32 inches from the floor, even though I'm taller, and don't need a railing for 2 steps anyway.

Let me know where you live, I'd like to move there.

 

[wdlsguy]

Let's change the scenario slightly

Could Whirlpool get away with saying "no religious texts (Bibles, Qurans, etc.) in your car"?

 

[BeLikeTrey]

ahahhh

goood point... hmmmm

I think if it's in your car then they cannot go into it and they then cannot possibly know about it. I know it is the principle of the thing but really, no one will stop I bet. as to the principle WDLSGUY has a neat point.

The only thing I can think of to that effect is they will say that the text doesn't endanger lives...

 

[Mr. Clark]

So where do you live that there are no building codes? Carport too close to the street? Tear it down, friend. Doors 38 in. wide, for wheelchairs dontchanow [doesn't matter tnat no one in my family needs one]. Railings have to be 32 inches from the floor, even though I'm taller, and don't need a railing for 2 steps anyway.

Irrelevant.

Other rights violations don't justify this one.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Y'all need to look up argumentum ad absurdum.

A gun in the locked car in the parking lot in no way infringes on the employer's property rights. Employers seeking to prevent this are clearly more interested in social engineering than in any actual safety or rights issue.

 

[Fletchette]

I think people here are missing a very important detail: this isn't an issue pitting private property rights vs. individual rights. It is an issue pitting CORPORATE property rights vs. individual rights.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago, a Denver news station discovered that a run-down motel east of Denver refused to admit people of color as customers. They raised a big stink about it but the legal position of the Attorney General (of the state) was that there was nothing they could do because it was Private Property - the business was a "sole-propriety" i.e. personally owned. All those equal-oportunity laws can only apply to incorporated business.

So Whirlpool cannot infringe on their workers' Constitutional Rights, whether that is to bear arms or be a member of a particular religion. If Whirlpool was a sole-propriety, then they could exclude African-Americans, handicapped people, etc.

I think that a lot of corporate bean-counters would do an about-face on prohibiting weapons if the next time someone went on a killing-spree at work the surviving family members sued for preventing their family members from defending themselves.

 

[Mr. Clark]

Property rights are individual rights. Individual are the only kind of rights there are. Corporations have rights because, legally, they are individuals, even if they weren't legally individuals they would derive their rights from the individuals who own them. Those individuals do no give up any rights when they voluntarily join together to own something.

The bill of rights is only a limitation on the government. There is no right to free speech, bear arms, or practice religion on my property if I don't want you to do it. This violates no one's constitutional rights.

 

[Fletchette]

Corporations have rights because, legally, they are individuals, even if they weren't legally individuals they would derive their rights from the individuals who own them. Those individuals do no give up any rights when they voluntarily join together to own something.

Actually, those individuals do give up some of their rights when they decide to incorporate. They also get something in return - a different tax structure as well as liability protection; unless a CEO does something criminal, you cannot sue him for his personal assets if his company does you harm.

Another thing the individuals give up when they decide to incorporate is complete property rights. That is, they give up their property rights (much as an individual can elect to give up his Fifth Amendment rights during a trial) and agree to comply with Equal Opportunity Laws, etc.

These rights are not taken. Companies voluntarily give them up when they incorporate. The run-down motel example is a good one because the owners of that business did not incorporate, so they could be racist if they wanted.

If you own a corporation yourself, take a look at the Articles of Incorporation. There will be a clause stating this in affect.

 

[Mr. Clark]

The CEO doesn't own the company, the shareholders do. The CEO is an employee just like the janitor, even if he also owns shares, which isn't always the case. A tax structure that taxes income twice is hardly a benefit, and although personal liability is limited for shareholders that's because they don't personally run the company, they appoint those who do (actaully, they elect those that appoint those who do). They can still lose everything invested in that company, though.

Personal liability for the CEO, president, or Charmian is no different than any other employee if criminal activity has occurred or they otherwise breach their fiduciary responsibilities. They can, though not often enough, be sued for their personal property and lose. Their roles as officer of the company and shareholder are different. Their role as shareholder doesn't confer any liability benefit to them as an employee.

If you own a corporation yourself, take a look at the Articles of Incorporation. There will be a clause stating this in affect.

My articles of incorporation don't. Just an agreement to abide by the laws, not an agreement to give up the right to fight the unconstitutional ones. I am sure the current law allows the state to do this, and the court will probably agree. I am sure Whirlpool will abide by the law and court as they have agreed to do. It doesn't make the law or the court correct, however.

I should also state that Whirlpool is being stupid here and should allow firearms not only in cars but on the hip of any employee who chooses to carry. But it's their right to be stupid. It's their house.

 

[another okie]

"They have the same rights on their property that you have on yours."

Actually they don't. When you open a store or a factory you make your property a place of public access, and you have to abide by the rules that govern such places, such as not discriminating based on race or gender or disability. Whirlpool obviously cannot ban Bibles in cars or John Kerry campaign literature in the cars. The reason Whirlpool can't understand how this applies to guns is that the Second Amendment has not been taken seriously by our legal system.