TexasCHLforum.com

A question. Congrats on the parking lot win. But I reading around the internet (obviously the source of all truth! ) that employers can rewrite their handbooks to make not having a gun in the car a condition of employment.

So is this legal under the legislation? If so, it would make the bill not applicable to many firms who have such rules or add them.

Hope not and sorry to be a touch confused. Have to stop reading the Internets and using the Google.

GEM-Texas wrote:A question. Congrats on the parking lot win. But I reading around the internet (obviously the source of all truth! ) that employers can rewrite their handbooks to make not having a gun in the car a condition of employment.

So is this legal under the legislation? If so, it would make the bill not applicable to many firms who have such rules or add them.

Hope not and sorry to be a touch confused. Have to stop reading the Internets and using the Google.

This statement was in an email I received from TSRA (Linda Tripp): "A word of caution! Watch for your employer to change their employee manual, especially those companies which exercised the strongest opposition."

I am not certain what can be done. The law passed seems pretty clear to me. My employer's employee handbook already prohibits guns (and a number of other items) in our personal vehicles.

Paragrouper wrote:\

This statement was in an email I received from TSRA (Linda Tripp): "A word of caution! Watch for your employer to change their employee manual, especially those companies which exercised the strongest opposition."

I also noticed this statement in the email. I wasn't quite sure what she meant by that. I thought the parking lot bill was supposed to override the employee manual.

Brian

I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

or "no reason at all" if I recall correctly.

Some employers may fire someone for socks they don't like, hair parted wrong, whatever "reason" but some say it's safer not to give a reason at all.

RPB wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

or "no reason at all" if I recall correctly.

Some employers may fire someone for socks they don't like, hair parted wrong, whatever "reason" but some say it's safer not to give a reason at all.

That is correct, is it simply a "catch-all" for employers...since there is always a "reason".

flintknapper wrote:

RPB wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

or "no reason at all" if I recall correctly.

Some employers may fire someone for socks they don't like, hair parted wrong, whatever "reason" but some say it's safer not to give a reason at all.

That is correct, is it simply a "catch-all" for employers...since there is always a "reason".

how has this played out in Oklahoma, where they've had a parking lot law on the books for a while now?

The Annoyed Man wrote:how has this played out in Oklahoma, where they've had a parking lot law on the books for a while now?

Excellent question. I haven't heard or read about any fallout from the new law.

I suspect most companies will ignore the law and will not change their policies or handbooks. This will lead to more discussions on the forum, similar to the topics on illegal 30.06 signs.

I found this about a court decision that upheld the Oklahoma law.
http://ehstoday.com/safety/ruling-guns-legal-lots-2761/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

Sounds like grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit!!!! My employer has that provision but I have never seen it used in the 9 years I have been with the company. Employers are not above the law and they had better tread lightly on this issue least they find themselves hauled into court for wrongful termination. I suspect this would be easy to prove especially when terminating an employee that followed a search of a vehicle.

Great find but we are in the 5th Circuit. However, precedents count. The article seems to knock the socks off the private property ranters that we've seen here.

Can the TX AG speak to the issue as was done previously on other parking lot interpretations?

Also for faculty (harking back to college issues) - at least for tenured faculty (and those on the tenure track), firing at will isn't possible unless there is great moral or legal violations. This would not be such reason, it would seem.

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:how has this played out in Oklahoma, where they've had a parking lot law on the books for a while now?

Excellent question. I haven't heard or read about any fallout from the new law.

I suspect most companies will ignore the law and will not change their policies or handbooks. This will lead to more discussions on the forum, similar to the topics on illegal 30.06 signs.

I found this about a court decision that upheld the Oklahoma law.
http://ehstoday.com/safety/ruling-guns-legal-lots-2761/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found this quote in the article to be interesting. Could this be what TSRA was referring to?

In the wake of the appeals court ruling, Anelli says human resources and legal teams in states where these pro-gun laws have passed may need to rewrite employee handbooks to include firearms policies specifically crafted to reflect the reality that guns could be present in the parking lot.

http://ehstoday.com/safety/ruling-guns-legal-lots-2761/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right2Carry wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

Sounds like grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit!!!! My employer has that provision but I have never seen it used in the 9 years I have been with the company. Employers are not above the law and they had better tread lightly on this issue least they find themselves hauled into court for wrongful termination. I suspect this would be easy to prove especially when terminating an employee that followed a search of a vehicle.

All that is needed is a reasonable amount of time to pass after the search. If you're fired months or even weeks after the search, the employer could deny the reason for firing.

I caution everyone to resist being the 'trailblazer' on this subject at your job. Don't ask about the new law or how it will affect company policy.

No doubt, many employers will modify their policies to comply. Others will likely resist vehemently and will find ways of punishing employees they suspect or know are taking advantage of SB321. Don't mark yourself as one of 'them'.

Silence is still golden!

Mike1951 wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't see how changing the wording in the handbook will circumvent the law. If the law is clear that employees have a right to keep a firearm in their locked private vehicle then I don't see how rewriting the employee manual is going to change that.

I thought the new law once signed would prevent exactly this kind of action from employers.

It wouldn't.

BUT.....your employer (as a condition of employment) can require that they be able to inspect/search your vehicle at any time. So......you know what that leads to, right?

You could not be fired for lawfully having a weapon in your locked vehicle BUT....Texas is a "Hire at Will" State and an employer may fire you for nearly any reason (with a few exceptions).

You will simply receive your pink slip (along with some bogus reason for your firing) once it is discovered you are "carrying" a weapon in your vehicle.

Sounds like grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit!!!! My employer has that provision but I have never seen it used in the 9 years I have been with the company. Employers are not above the law and they had better tread lightly on this issue least they find themselves hauled into court for wrongful termination. I suspect this would be easy to prove especially when terminating an employee that followed a search of a vehicle.

All that is needed is a reasonable amount of time to pass after the search. If you're fired months or even weeks after the search, the employer could deny the reason for firing.

I caution everyone to resist being the 'trailblazer' on this subject at your job. Don't ask about the new law or how it will affect company policy.

No doubt, many employers will modify their policies to comply. Others will likely resist vehemently and will find ways of punishing employees they suspect or know are taking advantage of SB321. Don't mark yourself as one of 'them'.

Silence is still golden!

I agree on silence is golden. They can deny all they want, that is what we have courts for.

GEM-Texas wrote:Great find but we are in the 5th Circuit. However, precedents count. The article seems to knock the socks off the private property ranters that we've seen here.

Can the TX AG speak to the issue as was done previously on other parking lot interpretations?

Also for faculty (harking back to college issues) - at least for tenured faculty (and those on the tenure track), firing at will isn't possible unless there is great moral or legal violations. This would not be such reason, it would seem.

I believe that the AG can speak only to the criminal aspects of the law. Suing for wrongful termination would be a civil matter. However, IANAL so I could be wrong.