TexasCHLforum.com

GEM-Texas wrote:Then you know the issues. No reason to replay them and divert from the topic at hand.

The issue isn't the theory of private property but legalisms that might result from the interaction of the law and attempts to circumvent it with some handbook language, perhaps demanding searches.

I thank you for providing me with guidance on how and when I should post. My inexperience at it shows.

GEM-Texas wrote:Then you know the issues. No reason to replay them and divert from the topic at hand.

The issue isn't the theory of private property but legalisms that might result from the interaction of the law and attempts to circumvent it with some handbook language, perhaps demanding searches.

...all of the above figure in how this law is to be implemented in reality with companies and employee handbooks...your rude dismissal/branding of others' opinions is as obnoxious as your trying to tell folks here what to post and not...and telling them to go read thus and such...you need to take your feet down off the coffee table and respect the other guests at this party...

Yeah, right. I started the thread to discuss the implementation of policy issue and not rehash the theoretical private property debate.

Keeping on topic makes for good discussions. Simple concept. If you don't agree and want to replay the opposition to the parking lot bill based on being king of the parking lot, go ahead.

I was looking to a specific answer and will tune out beating the dead horse. Of course, the bill has to be signed and come into action or the dead horse will rise zombie like. I guess that would be OK with you. Ride that horse around the parking lot and make sure the employees show proper respect.

GEM-Texas wrote:Yeah, right. I started the thread to discuss the implementation of policy issue and not rehash the theoretical private property debate.

Keeping on topic makes for good discussions. Simple concept. If you don't agree and want to replay the opposition to the parking lot bill based on being king of the parking lot, go ahead.

I was looking to a specific answer and will tune out beating the dead horse. Of course, the bill has to be signed and come into action or the dead horse will rise zombie like. I guess that would be OK with you. Ride that horse around the parking lot and make sure the employees show proper respect.

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.

If you want a definitive answer, you must ask a specific question. Employers can rewrite their handbooks any way they please. If their policy is contrary to the law, it would not be legally enforceable. End of Thread.

Mike1951 wrote: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.

This.

Anyone who works for a large corporation can be fired for violating some policy. People have been fired for making a single personal phone call or sending or receiving a single personal e-mail on a company-owned phone or computer.

Also, I don't know what anyone expects to get from a wrongful termination suit, even if such a suit could be won.

Monetary damages from wrongful termination lawsuits usually involve federal law, which is not the case here.

Forcing an employer who fired you to reinstate you does not sound like the path to a long, satifying career; and that kind of episode tends to become baggage even if employers do not disclose it in a traceable way.

- Jim

steve817 wrote:OK I found it,

Unless local law expressly permits possession of a weapon in a locked personal vehicle on company property, you may not possess or use any weapon or any component of a weapon (e.g. ammunition) on company property

Local law would include all laws under which the locality falls from international to the city or town.

WildBill wrote:

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.

If you want a definitive answer, you must ask a specific question. Employers can rewrite their handbooks any way they please. If their policy is contrary to the law, it would not be legally enforceable. End of Thread.

Ditto. And who says an employer can search your car whenever they want? How do they know what is in your car and why would you allow them to search it? If an employer feels they have that power, what else will you let them do to you?

JKTex wrote:And who says an employer can search your car whenever they want? How do they know what is in your car and why would you allow them to search it?

If you work for a large company—larger than a single-owner business—they probably will "request" that you sign a statement of policy as a condition of employment. I say "request" in quotation marks because if you decline the request, they don't hire you.

If the company has a closed campus with employee parking on the campus, it most likely will include a statement that the management can demand to search your car, and refusing is grounds for immediate dismissal.

I have worked for three large companies at five locations, all of which had this kind of provision. All were surrounded by highways and had no place to park off-campus. Parking off-campus and walking to the office or plant would have involved at least a half-mile walk and made the person doing it very obvious to security personnel.

Companies that perform these searches usually do so because of suspicion of drug or alcohol use or theft. Sometimes these suspicions are valid. Sometimes they are based on rumors spread by malicious coworkers. Sometimes they are based on an employee running his mouth—which some people seemingly cannot resist.

If that's not enough, they can call the cops and get out the "drug-sniffing" dogs. Then they have probable cause for a LEO to search your car.

If an employer feels they have that power, what else will you let them do to you?

• no smoking—including in some cases outside of work
• random drug tests
• no consumption of alcohol
• no romantic relationships with other employees
• no personal phone calls on company time—including on your personally owned mobile phone
• no personal e-mail or web surfing on the company network
• no personal business on company time or while using a company-owned vehicle
• wearing an ugly uniform and other dress codes
• using required safety equipment

There's an old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

- Jim

The bottom line is that you can do no wrong if otherwise valued at work, and no right if you're otherwise not wanted or needed.

In my experience, that is generally true. I used to work with a guy who literally smelled like pot all the time. He did his job like a finely tuned machine, and nobody said a word about it. I've also worked with people who probably had alcohol or other drug problems but kept the issue discreet.

However, sexual harassment is pretty much suicide. It can cost the company too much money to be tolerated.

I suspect the employee firearms in parking lots issue will be no big deal in a year or so. But as I said previously, some management organizations will continue to be stupid because that's what they do best.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

If an employer feels they have that power, what else will you let them do to you?

• no smoking—including in some cases outside of work
• random drug tests
• no consumption of alcohol
• no romantic relationships with other employees
• no personal phone calls on company time—including on your personally owned mobile phone
• no personal e-mail or web surfing on the company network
• no personal business on company time or while using a company-owned vehicle
• wearing an ugly uniform and other dress codes
• using required safety equipment

There's an old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

- Jim

Most of those aren't even close to or not at all the same thing though. The couple that are, still aren't that close. #2 is about it and maybe #3 if you mean they won't allow smoking when you're not there, as in after hours, and #2 is also under your own control; your choice. Most of the rest is there's and they can control how and if you use it.

I'm kind of making a point, and the point is, it's your choice. I don't care who's playing what tune, it's your choice if you want to allow a business who can and will drop you for no reason and without warning (Texas is still a right to work state) to run your life. "My employer forces me" isn't accurate, "I let my employer make me" is more like it. It's like marriage.

JKTex wrote:"My employer forces me" isn't accurate, "I let my employer make me" is more like it.

I agree completely with that.

In fact, people excuse their actions by saying "I had no choice" all the time, when they did have a choice. No adult can be forced to do anything unless by three or four muscular goons moving him around like a mannequin.

What people really mean is that they choose the course of action that is least painful for themselves.

I have a skill set that I can use most effectively in a corporate environment. I earn a comfortable income doing that. I choose to abide by the rules that my employer sets.

I could be self-employed and have been. I did not earn nearly as much income doing that, and I found it frustrating.

BTW, every single U.S. congressman and senator is an employee of the federal government and works in a federal facility where weapons, smoking, and other activities are restricted—though they can still legally commit sexual harassment. Most live in or travel through the District of Columbia, where they cannot legally possess a firearm outside their residence.

- Jim

What compels companies to have policies on every topic, conceivable or otherwise? When (if) I'm in charge of a company, there'll be a section in the handbook on how to do your job, followed by, "Dave's Company's policy on everything else is 'Don't do anything illegal on company time or property, and you'd better have a really good explanation if you give someone a reason to sue us'."

seamusTX wrote:In fact, people excuse their actions by saying "I had no choice" all the time, when they did have a choice. No adult can be forced to do anything unless by three or four muscular goons moving him around like a mannequin.

This is the basis for the evil known as Zero Tolerence.