Oklahoma: 12 fired from Weyerhaeuser for guns in cars

[Okiecruffler]

For all those who side with the company

Just curious, what else do you think they should be allowed to search for in a private vehicle? And if you come to my house, is it Okay for me to search your vehicle? Unfortunately the law is currently being held up by a judge.
I work in a pretty intesting part of town, granted not dowtown D.C., but interesting for these parts. Do I have a weapon to and from work? I'll let you guess.

 

[txgho1911]

Where should an individual's rights end in respect to a company. So maybe it should be braught up to a vote in a shareholders meeting. Most shareholder votes are cast 1 for 1 1share = 1vote as 2000shares = 2000votes.
Let the principle owners decide so consumers can make an inteligent choice.

Still nothing will stop the one guy or gal who doesn't care what the rule is. Or the law.

 

[Fletchette]

It is interesting how gun folks are all about rights to keep and bare arm and the rights to protect their private property, but then get all upset when companies like Weyerhaeuser exercise their rights to not allow guns on property.

I thought that the Supreme Court has ruled that your car is an extension of your home. That is why a police officer must ask you permission, have a warrent or have "probable cause" to search your car. If you get stopped by a Trooper for speeding and asks to search your car you can simply say "I do not give permission". The trooper can then search your car (anything found is inadmissable since speeding is not "probable cause") or impound it and get a warrent before searching your car. Getting a warrent would be impossible (if the law is followed) without the aforementioned probable cause.

I do not see how company security can just search a car because they feel like it. You would have to have previously signed a contract allowing them to do so, in which case the plaintiffs are not going to be able to claim ignorance.

 

[musher]

I find this issue a difficult one. It's likely the individuals gave consent to the company to search their vehicles, bags, or whatever as a condition of employment. From this perspective, it seems pretty clear that they knowingly took some chances with their job and lost the bet.

On the other hand, the company policy has a direct and significant impact on the normal lives of the employees outside the workplace. I'm tempted to say, if you don't like it don't work there, except in a lot of cases the company is the only employer in town of any size.

Also, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that the issue just didn't cross the minds of some of these folks, any more than having a hammer or a wrench in the car would occur to them as an issue.

This is a big difference between rural and urban. While lots of folks will talk about firearms as just being tools, it's really true in a lot of the country.

Not everybody had to go out and shoot a dying cow several times and then absent-mindedly toss the firearm in the truck, lose track of it for several weeks, only then to have it discovered by the dogs. I know the description was to make it sound like the guy was really innocent as he didn't realize he was breaking company policy, but in reality, it just shows how poorly he was keeping track of his gun

This is an example of what I'm talking about. I read that situation much differently. I didn't see it as an example of the guy not keeping track of his firearms, but of keeping firearms as just another tool. My uncle (a farmer) always had a rifle in the truck, just like he had a spare tire and a jack or a flashlight. Spare ammo was rattling around in the glove box. It's not so much that he wasn't keeping track of the thing, as that it didn't cross his mind until he needed one to pop a coyote, deer, injured stock or whatever. If you asked him, he could tell you where it was, but he never really spent a lot of time thinking about it. I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone around carried something like that in their vehicle all the time. That's where the term 'truck gun' came from.

 

[Mike Hull]

To those that support weyerhauser's parking lot ban! What will you say when Wal Mart, and all the big shopping malls enact the same laws, with the same type of enforcement.

It will effectively prohibit you from having a gun in your car almost anywhere you go, where you may be in danger, except for your own driveway, and while cruising around.

Don't forget that apartments are the landlords private property too.

It doesn't take much imagination to see where this could go, eventually.

 

[skich]

I don't understand how anyone could possibly justify firing any of these employees with an otherwise long and spotless work history.

 

[musher]

The difference is that the walmart lot is open to the public. You have not given consent to the company to search your car (or your person) when you shop there. Of course, they could do like the airport, fence the lot and put up a sign saying that parking there implies consent to search....not sure how that would affect their business.

As for the lease restriction...it already happens, example . If you read your lease and you don't agree with the terms, you don't rent.

 

[cracked butt]

If the people who were fired were dumb enough to allow someone else to search their vehicles instead of just claiming they were sick and driving home, they deserve to be fired.

If they worked for a company that had a "no weapons" policy and decided to bring weapons anyhow, and submitted to a search, they deserve to get fired.

Personally, I've worked for such companies, and I've kept a gun or two in the truck often, but I always knew in the back of my head that there was a risk that I could get fired because of it.

I currenlty work for a small company that jsut put a "no weapons" policy into place with the exception of getting permission from the company. I immediately talked to the company president and he agreed that it was ok for me to keep guns in my truck, because I often go to the range or hunting after work, so long as I keep quiet about possessing a gun on company property and keep my heicle locked.

 

[NorthernExtreme]

I believe any organization that chooses to make their place of business a "Gun free zone" should be required to have a check in station where an employee can safely check his/her gun in prior to entering the property. And the Organization should be held responsible for the safe storage and return of that weapon (property) when that person leaves.

Company rules like this have repercussions that extend far past the scope of their property or the intent of such rules. Insuring their employees do not bring guns on company property reasonably insures (has the unintended consequence) they will not be able to exercise their legal rights prior to entering or after exiting the property. I'm not sure, but I don't believe a company can do that.

A company can have any rule it likes. It in no way guarantees that those rules are legal. Having a business that requires the need to employ people (American citizens) has the expressed legal requirement that their rights be protected. Just one more reason the SCOTUS needs to put the whole individual rights (2nd Amendment) issue at rest once and for all.

Truth be known, the companies are far more afraid of lawyers than their employees. If it were your business would you like the idea of a lawyer coming and legally robbing you of everything because and employee did something evil with a firearm on your property?

Lawyers and Judges will be the undoing of our Nation. All our freedoms and rights are now subject to the whims of lawyers and Judges. Companies run in fear of the legal system, and they often seek shelter by trampling on the rights of their employees to achieve that safety. It's a crying shame. :banghead:

 

[Cacique500]

I work in a paper mill - and at my mill I bet that at least 20% of the vehicles in the parking lot have firearms in them.

The employees at the Weyerhauser mill should've refused to open their vehicle up for a search. If management wants to call the cops and have their drug sniffing dogs get a hit on my car then fine - but what's this sniffing for guns? If you're not driving your vehicle *into* the mill (which *is* subject to search) then it shouldn't matter.

Let them try and fire me for refusing to open my car up...lets see how that holds up in a court of law.

 

[Wildalaska]

But there are way too many people here who think freedom means that they can do whatever they want and everyone else can do exactly what they tell them to do. They whine incessantly about their rights being curtailed but don't miss an opportunity to stick to the next guy.

I join in the ????????????????????

Cant see what that statement relates too..

As to the issue....private property, company policy, o well, the fired workers lose. Sympathy notwithstanding, they lose legally and morally.

WildmyhouseismycastleAlaska

 

[Werewolf]

I'm astounded...that there are enough trees in OK to run a paper mill. All I ever saw there were dirt and rocks.

You could fit the entire state of commie freakin' New Jersey into the forests of Eastern Oklahoma. Based on the tone of your post - I am one Okie that's glad you went back to NJ - stay there.

 

[standingbear]

I dunno bout you folks but I find that a company can search your private property to be disturbing,especially disturbing is the "with or without the owners consent".jobs arent exactly easy to find these days but I would be hard pressed to resign,not because Icarry a gun in my car but because of the policy itself.

Is there anybody here that would not find it disturbing to go out at your lunch break and find 3 or 4 company "officials" going through your car or truck while curious onlookers watch?
would it be equally allowable to have them set up "hidden" video cameras in a locker room to monitor a no smoking on company grounds policy?remember,you signed a statement to the effect you agree with or without your consent


seems to be opening up a door to a whole new way of "legalized" snooping.if theres a concern about having violance in the workplace then I would think that theres more going on within the company than liscenced legal permit holders locking the firearms in their cars or trucks.passing out pamplets and maintaining access to everyones private property by random searches at any given moment is not going to solve any issues.



My .02 cents worth

 

[LoneStranger]

Rights are Rights, but the Devil can be in the details.

Asked the dog handler one day about what his dog was hitting on when it was saying guns are in a vehicle. What he said was that the dog was picking up the smell of gun oil and propellants.

Obvious counter strategy is to make sure that spilled propellant and gun oil are visible thru window/in bed of vehicle. "Well shuckydurn, your dog is just hitting on something legal and clearly visible. I don't see why I should let you look any further. Besides, I was planning on calling the towtruck to remove my vehicle after shift change cause its broke and you can't get in."

BTDT, lots of people bs with their buddy and goof off when paperwork like that is handed out. "What? Me read that nonsense. I'll get ol' Joe to tell me if I should pay any attention."

Yes, the property owners do have certain property rights. No, they are not all inclusive and can be modified by legal means. Obvious situation would be the driveway where it attaches to the road. If you build a fence and gate along the road you are generally not allowed to build at the edge of the pavement. Seems they have a thing called setback or edge of right of way. This means that as long as I do not go thru your gate or past your fence I can turn around in your driveway as much as I want. And most likely the authorities will require you to perform maintenance.

What looks like happened here is the Property Owner excercised percieved rights and the state legally changed them. The terms the court should tell them is "Suck it up Big Boy! Get on with life." There is alot to be said about making lemons into lemonade.

 

[Standing Wolf]

My right to defend my life and property trump an employers right to stoop to anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

 

[45Badger]

My right to defend my life and property trump an employers right to stoop to anti-Second Amendment bigotry.

That's a free choice on your part. As is their's if they fire you for breaking company policy.

 

[JohnKSa]

Company policy is company policy. They can pretty much fire you for doing anything against company policy.

The problem with this kind of policy is that it effectively denies you the right to carry on the way to and from work--not just on company property. I know exactly what that's like because I live 40 MILES from my workplace. I spend just short of 2 hours a day commuting through 3 counties and all during that time I can not have a firearm in my car because if it is discovered in the parking lot I could be fired. They are not just restricting my right to have a firearm on company property, they are also restricting it all the way from my home to the company and back.

Here's the irony of my situation. TX law states that it is illegal to restrict CHL holders from having firearms in parking lots because the parking lot is not legally considered to be part of the company premises for the purpose of restricting firearm carry. That means that VISITORS or CUSTOMERS to my workplace are allowed to bring firearms into the parking lot and can not be prosecuted or even forced to leave for doing so. The company policy can not touch them because the only penalties that can be legally levied are against EMPLOYEES. Let's say I retire or get fired. I can come back the next day with a gun in my car, sit in the parking lot all day, and they can't legally do a thing about it.

For the next step up in stupidity--my company has a policy that states you can not smoke or dip tobacco anywhere on company premises--including in your car while it is parked in the company lot. I don't use tobacco, but I still think this is a pretty foolish policy.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

As far as I'm concerned, my car and its contents, my body and my clothing and their contents are my private property. If you allow me or my car onto your property, they remain my private property. Nobody may search any of them without a warrant proving probable cause that I have committed a crime and stating exactly what evidence is being sought. Dogs cannot testify in court, hence the barking of a drug- or gun-sniffing dog does not change this one whit, court decisions to the contrary notwhithstanding.

If a company can convince me to contract away my privacy, and I do so, knowingly and willingly, then it's different. Publishing a company policy does not count as a contract, unless I have knowingly and willingly contracted to follow company policy as it changes.

I also consider drug tests of any kind, including breathalyzer, urine, blood, and hair tests, to be blatant violations of my fifth amendment right against compulsion to testify against myself.

 

[cerberus]

I agree with Bill

My car or truck "My private property" Everyone else keep their eye's and hands off. I would never work where some stupid jerk tried to make me any unsafer then the law has already made me.

 

[cracked butt]

I would never work where some stupid jerk tried to make me any unsafer then the law has already made me.

I hear this kind of talk all of the time. The fact is that paper mills pay really good wages. In my state, there are a lot of paper mills, and they pretty much pay the highest wages for factory work of any employer in the state. When I worked in a factory, some of the people I worked with dreamed of getting into a papermill- they tried leaning on connections such as relatives to try to help to get them an interview via a good reference. Typical wages where I worked were $10-12/hr while papermills usually payed upwards of $20/hr.

If you had your choice of making $12 per hour at a factory that allowed you to keep a handgun in your car vs a factory that paid $22 per hour that didn't, and had few other job options, and had a family to feed, would you put your money where your mouth is?

 

[DBR]

re: dogs detect propellant and gun lubricants:
Not to make light of the real issues involved here; but it sounds to me like a good reason to keep your guns REALLY clean and lubricate them with whatever oil you use in your engine.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Most companies of any size have an employee handbook that spells out in black and white what that company's policies are. Most will require that new hires sign a statement that they have read same and understand same before and as a condition of the hire.

Basically my understanding of employment law is that coming to work everyday is an unwritten, unspoken reaffirmation that I know co. policy(ies) and will not violate them.

The balance of power is as an employee I can always vote with my feet and leave a co. if I don't like a policy and the co. can vote me out of my job if they can prove I am breaking policy.

Frankly I think rules forbidding the possession of firearms in personal vechicles su-- and are totally wrong headed. I would hate to have no option but to work for such a company but every day I took my weapon on co. property in violation of this kind of rule I would be aware that it might be my last day there if it was detected. It would be my decision to take or not take that chance but if they pink slipped me for breaking their rule I would be at fault. My ex-employer, their attornies and the HR department may be but-heads but the decision to break that rule was mine.

In my experience when the economy is bad, companies feel safe making and enforcing unpopular rules they might not were hiring conditions more competitive. They also feel comfortable laying off as many people as possible and doubling up that work load of the people that remain when the job market is tight.

What about going to work everyday is a promise of fairness.

S-

 

[P95Carry]

But after clearing the parking lot of guns, "I believe the plant is safer," he said.

Sorry but - this really yanks my chain.

So - the company can then guarantee - can it? - that any person with mal intent cannot gain access to the place - with a gun ... ?? I doubt it - and all the while the employees are denuded of any means of protection.

This is so darned logical ... not!

As a major employer I would elect to have everyone carrying that wished so - against the time that some buttwipe just might go postal.. At least then the odds are that no folks will get badly hurt - simply because there exists the means to control such an episode.

Oh hang on - maybe my cynicism and logic is off this planet - of course - defenceless folks are sooo much safer.

 

[4D5]

Their jobs should be safe if...

The timber company said the weapons violated a new company policy that extended a longtime workplace gun ban to the parking area.

If the workers had not been advised of the "NEW company policy" ammendment now including the parking areas (in which case they would be requred to sign statement of same) then they can not be held accountable for a violating the "NEW company policy".

As in any items relating to terms and conditions of employment, any changes to your current conditions of employment always requries your written signature which acknowledges you have been informed of same and will comply or face the consequences.

If they had been so advised then there's no recourse, otherwise the 12 workers may be the new owners of the company

 

[Selfdfenz]

4D5
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV but:

"As in any items relating to terms and conditions of employment, any changes to your current conditions of employment always requries your written signature which acknowledges you have been informed of same and will comply or face the consequences."

I'm not sure I agree with that.
I think employers change those very things all the time without the requirement for a signature.

Hopefully one our legal eagles will chime in but I was under the impression an employer could do things like this company-wide without employees signing off on it. (especially so if they tell you at hire where changes in co policies are regularly posted and that it's your responsibility to stay aware of changes or pay the consequences) Different states may have different laws.

Course.
If they ask you to sign and you refuse they can fire you.
If they ask you to sign and you do but then break the rule they can fire you.

Legal eagles????

S-