Oklahoma: 12 fired from Weyerhaeuser for guns in cars

[Cosmoline]

They have a right to fire employees with firearms, and survivors have a right to sue them to the max if someone does go on a shooting spree and the Company has disarmed them. We also have the right to stop buying their timber products in protest.

 

[bhart89]

Concealed means concealed.

My company has a "no weapons" policy which I choose to ignore. If I were caught, I would be fired.

I do not believe that any company has the right to search my private vehicle. A company car is a different story.

I "off-body" carry in a laptop bag. (not the bag issued by my company so it is not their property). Even though their computer is in my bag, they have no right to search it unless I consent.

My life is worth more than a job. The only way that someone would find out that I have a pistol is if my life were in danger.

Everyone must decide for themselves if they accept responsibility for their own protection or if they choose to outsource their right to life and liberty.

 

[MrPhil]

A few related and random comments:

FWIW - Here in Oregon, Weyerhaeuser lets you hunt on their timber lands. They close said lands when fire danger is high. Knowing how crazy it can be in the woods, I would guess most logging-contractor employees are armed.

A reminder of what a corporation is: it is a legal fiction that allows the owners (share holders) to avoid personal liability, legal and financial. Corporations, as we know them today, are made possible by the same government that was created by the U.S. Constitution. To me, the idea that a legal fiction can have the same constitutional "rights" as me, is wrong headed.

I too work for a company that has a "no guns in the parking lot" policy. The company pays high wages and provides excellent benefits for this area. I fully accept that they will fire me if I'm caught with a gun on my person or in my car while on company premises. So far, nobody has done anything stupid enough to trigger mass searches. If this happens, hopefully I'll have enough warning to start parking in the street.

 

[SteveS]

NEVER be prohibited. Got that? And that's what the company is doing, prohibiting the exercise of this civil right.

Companies can, and do, prohibit the exercise of certain rights. For the most part, the Constitution (state and federal) is a barrier to State power

Many have pointed it out on this thread and others that an employer can "violate" the BOR. Critisize the company and get fired...you can't claim that 1st amendment rights are violated. Fired because of your gender...this is a violation of employment laws, not the 14th amendment.

 

[USP45usp]

My company has the same policy. Oregon is also a "right to work" state (which means the opposite, they can fire anyone for anything or nothing at all). I have also never signed the "company policy" form.

To me, it really doesn't matter, I will carry anyway. Sure, I may get fired but that's the way it is. I may have some "legal" cause to sue since I have never signed the policy form or I may not, like I said, they can fire/lay you off at anytime.

This includes refusing to do anything they want you to do up to and including not giving them permission to search your car and/or person.

Wayne

 

[cracked butt]

(which means the opposite, they can fire anyone for anything or nothing at all).

Actually "right to work" means nothing other than you are not forced to pay union dues or pay for a "work permit" from a union to work in a factory. I wish we had the same law here

 

[mons meg]

Exactly, CB. The term you're looking for is "at will" employment. Oklahoma was an "at will" state long before we passed "right to work" a couple years back.

In an attempt to steer us back to the specific topic of whether Oklahoma's law will survive judicial review, a friend of mine pointed out in a recent conversation over this thread that depending on the state, corporations only have rights specifically granted to them under their articles of incorporation. So, some attorney might want to chime in on whether in our current situation, corporations can complain that their private property rights are at odds with OK's now-pending legislation concerning weapons in a locked vehicle.

Also, I do think Yojinbo's proposal for a form of corporate "civil disobedience" (spray rem-oil on your hubcaps, etc etc) is not only hilarious, but merits serious consideration.

 

[publius]

I do think Yojinbo's proposal for a form of corporate "civil disobedience" (spray rem-oil on your hubcaps, etc etc) is not only hilarious, but merits serious consideration.

I agree. Seriously funny stuff!

 

[fistful]

Hank,

from fistful:

Can private property rights really be used to justify that? Wouldn't that impinge on surrounding property and the safety of unsuspecting employees?

I said "unsuspecting employees." I made that distinction because a gun prohibition is rather obvious, whereas a hundred things around me might be a fire code violation without my realizing it. On second thought, however, I may have been wrong on that point. Forgive me; I am currently recovering from over-libertarianism.

Yes, I do equate homes with places of business. Both are private property, are they not? If I own a home, I allow only certain people inside. If I own a lumber mill, I'll do the same. I am not a racist , but I am free to practice racism if I so choose, right? If I employ labor, I have a right to not hire or to fire certain people, correct? I am free to choose a barber of my own race, yes? If the barber I choose displeases me, I will fire him. Why must "employers" ask the government's permission when hiring/firing personnel? I don't.

"Son" is an expression - get over it. I gather you're not coming to work for me? I wouldn't take that job, either. If your employer doesn't allow certain kinds of cars, or doesn't like guns, or requires that you smoke, then either get in line or look elsewhere. I don't like being on call, but my job is worth it, so I suck it up.

 

[USP45usp]

Actually Fistful, you CANNOT keep someone from your business or employment due to any of the reasons that you mentioned (color, race, age, etc..), it's federal law that you cannot discriminate on certain factors.

You are able to do so in your home, you have those Rights while a business or a place of employment does not.

Since gun ownership is not a protected aspect, a business can bar you from their property as a policy of employment if you insist on carrying a gun and/or weapon on their property while they cannot bar a non-employee (unless marked by state law or federal law (federal buildings/property)) that has a permit from that property or business. Example, here in Oregon, only certain places are marked by state law (and federal buildings by federal law) and no other place can bar you from their property. The hospital in Eugene is marked "no weapons" with the gun sign with a slash through the circle but it means nothing, it's just a symbol of their anti-gunness and it carries about as much weight as a vacuum (not the cleaner, like the vacuum of space, nothingness).

I choose to carry at work. Yes, it's against the "rules" but I would rather have the strain of finding another job then the stress to my family of having to make my burial arrangements. I know the policy, as do all the employees here, but let me tell you, I'm not the only one that has a gun on trust property.

As for the dogs, heck, they would go crazy on my car. I bought it new in 1992 and though these years I have spilled hoppes in it, still finding loose ammo and brass, have had oil soak into the carpet in the back, have spilled powder (when shooting the BP's), etc.. Even if they never found a gun (which they wouldn't since it's in my "hide a way" case that is attached to me) they would still fire me for "cause" (they will think that I just have it very well hidden in the vehicle).

Reminds me of the time I was picked to have a randam search when I was active duty at the gate. Dog went wild (explosives dog) and they did an "in-depth" search, found nothing but some spilled powder and the oil stain.

Wayne

 

[Grump]

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread, but it's a cold hard fact that the U.S. Constitution is generally a restriction on the Government's efforts to restrict your rights. The Courts rather consistently take the approach that we can freely bargain away certain rights, even the inalienable ones, in exchange for employment.

Most of our silly "rights" that people have in the employment setting have been imposed on the employers by mere laws.

However, I believe that the appropriate approach here is that, under general contractual principles, no employer can rightfully extend its reach into your car without also assuming all duties and responsibilities of providing for your protection. That means separate employee parking not accessible to the public, staffed entry points, plus fencing and gates suffienct to stop a Beriut-style suicide bombing truck. There must also be some strong protecive measures at the general public/deliveries in AND out/customer sides. Absent such undertakings to ensure my safety, the bargain of me keeping my job in exchange for being de-fanged fails to want of adequate "consideration" or payment.

IOW, if an employer undertakes to protect the boss's safety by disarming ME, it must also undertake to PROTECT me with all lethal force it seeks to deny me. Does any employer want that responsibility? There's a similar rationale behing making common carriers (buses, planes, etc.) responsible to "insure" the safety of their customers against accidents.

 

[Master Blaster]

If you wanted to be a bad boy and bedevil the dog handlers,

Get some codeine cough syrup and a pumpspray bottle of clp, put a couple table spoons of syrup in the clp, and mix in a teaspoon of bullseye propellent for good measure.

Go through the lot and spray the wheel well or under the edge of the trunklid of every manager in the companies car or spray every car with a little of the mixture.

The dogs will indicate the presence of opiates and gun products on every car in the lot.

Pretty soon it will become cumbersome for management to do these searches.

 

[DRZinn]

I think fistful was referring to a moral right to exclude anyone for any reason, not necessarily a legal right.

 

[PaleRyder]

A private company is breaking the law by searching people's personal vehicles without permission though, are they not?

 

[mons meg]

Remember folks, Whirlpool is a *corporation*. The question at hand should be one of whether corporate private property rights are at all the same as say, a citizen-landowner's property rights.

There are also instances that have nothing to do with civil rights that affect your use of prvate land, anyway. Try and tell the game warden you shouldn't be fined for baiting deer and taking over the limit since by golly, it's your land...

 

[fistful]

Actually USP45usp,

Doc Zinn is right. A business owner has a basic right to discriminate based on race, gender or otherwise, even if it is a crime. Please don't tell me you approve of a law that forces people to hire labor that they don't want.

 

[USP45usp]

Fistful,

Never said that I agreed with the law, just pointed out what the law says. I agree that a business owner should be able to hire whomever or whatever he/she/it wants and also pay them what they want.

I don't believe in quota's, I don't believe in "kickbacks" to companies that are minority or women, I don't believe in the minimum wage (fed or state) either.

In the true America, we wouldn't be discussing these things but this ain't your fathers, fathers, father America .

But, as an individual (and hopefully soon to be small business person), I will do as I please.

Wayne

 

[DRZinn]

I must say, I am amazingly good at seeing when people are arguing apples and oranges....

 

[dustind]

"anything goes" since it's private property, then Weyerhaeuser can:

* Ignore fire codes, since it's private property.
* Mandate everyone drive a Toyota, if they want to use the parking lot.
* Prohibit the presence of blacks, Jews, or any other group on their private property.
* Provide no handicapped parking, wheelchair access, or the like.
* Require everyone to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, if they want to work there.

etc. etc.

I agree.

Insurance would be difficult to get unless they followed what the insurance company said they needed for fire protection.

No one would work for them, and their customer would boycott them. If you change the list, then people may work or buy their products because of their views.

As for the race/religious part. Would you force a minority person to accept a bigot even if the bigot behaved himself or herself while on duty? <begin sarcasm> If so, then aren't you supporting bigotry, and doesn't that make you a racist/antisemite? </end sarcasm>

As for the argument that every buisness could ban guns and thus you could not carry... You could find businesses that cater to your views even in a society that was mostly against you. Free markets cater to smaller groups than governments do. Take the black people in the segregated south for example, even when the government was really against them they could still find places to work, shop, and eat.

 

[fistful]

All the best, Wayne. Do what you think is right.

Quit braggin', Doc Zinn. By the way, doesn't "moral right" actually refer to right, as opposed to wrong, and not to rights, as in the Bill of Rights?

 

[DRZinn]

To me, if it is "a right" then that's as used in the Constitution. If it's just "right" then that's as opposed to wrong.

I rarely get the chance/have the excuse to brag. Let me indulge!

 

[glocksman]

Sounds like those Weyerhauser people need a good union to back them up.
If the gun policy is important to the employees, they can organize a union local and strike over it.

Oh, I forgot.
Unions are merely the tool Commies use to supress 'free labor' and persecute innocent corporations.

 

[Selfdfenz]

I'm as anti union as they come but a union might be the perfect way for the employees in this factory to convey to management "play nicer and start using common sense".

If this is an operation that has to be run near the woodlot there is no way the company can close the place since they can't outsourse the forest.
S-

 

[telewinz]

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

As a private company, they have the right to ban firearms or any weapons on their private property. I suspect plenty of notice was given on this "new" policy but as usual some irreponsible employees chose to ignore it then cry like babies when they have to face the results of their actions. "Responsible" gun ownership involves more than just safety.

""anything goes" since it's private property, then Weyerhaeuser can:

* Ignore fire codes, since it's private property.
* Mandate everyone drive a Toyota, if they want to use the parking lot.
* Prohibit the presence of blacks, Jews, or any other group on their private property.
* Provide no handicapped parking, wheelchair access, or the like.
* Require everyone to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, if they want to work there.

These comments are a knee jerk reaction and for the most part are "fiction". And where were you parked in the lot?

I believe that the appropriate approach here is that, under general contractual principles, no employer can rightfully extend its reach into your car without also assuming all duties and responsibilities of providing for your protection.

That is the justification for the search. An employee going postal on company property. This happens all the time as you know if you watch the news.

 

[junyo]

As private property, the owners can make many stipulations to the use and/or conduct of individuals on their property. It's different than with public property since as a citizen, you are a de facto part owner of public land, which obviously isn't the case with a building or parking lot owned by a coporation. It isn't an infringement of your rights since you choose to accept those conditions to gain access to the property, or as a condition of employment. For instance, your employer has no intrinsic right to search your car and/or belongings, but most employers have a sign at the entry point or a notice in the employee handbook that states that cars, bags, and employees are subject to search. Seeing that sign or having read that notice and proceeding is taken as your acknowledgement and surrender of that right.