Search found 2 matches

by tbrown
Tue May 31, 2011 9:00 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: SB321: Employer parking lots
Replies: 71
Views: 33755

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

canvasbck wrote:Another question, under the petrochemical exemption a parking area has to meet a three pronged test to be considered secure. It must 1) physically contain the plant, 2) be closed to the public, and 3) the ingress must be continuously monitored by security personnel.

Under 3, there is not a definition of "monitored" or of "security personnel". Would a camera that broadcasts to a board operator meet this standard? In other words, could a chemical storage facility that does not have security guards mount a camera on their entrance and have the image from that camera displayed for the board operator and then be considered a secure area?
That sounds like monitoring. Especially if you need an access card to enter the gate.

However, I think many of the plants (with air permits, etc.) already have full-time on-site security, if my last visit to facilities in the Houston Ship Channel area are any indication.
by tbrown
Sun May 29, 2011 11:53 am
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: SB321: Employer parking lots
Replies: 71
Views: 33755

Re: SB321: Employer parking lots

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
rp_photo wrote:Can employers circumvent this by posting 30.06 signs at lot entrances?

As with all CHL issues, we need to celebrate quietly and especially avoid rubbing anything in "The Man's" face.
No. There is a doctrine in law that the "specific controls the general." TPC §30.06 is a trespass statute that is based upon the ability of a property owner to bar entry to certain persons. SB321 strips employers of this authority over employees.

Chas.
But the sign would still apply to customers, visitors and other people who aren't employees. Right?

Return to “SB321: Employer parking lots”