Printable View
it's a self given right as a private company. as long as you're on their property, you follow their rules. discriminating against something that doesn't effect work and cannot be helped by the employee are different to policies of no guns or biscuits
Dress codes have alot to do with certain jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I remember Tommy Haas having to change his shirt from a cut-off to a short-sleeved shirt in a tennis match.
i agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I have a better one.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What legal right does a company in the USA have to forbid anything that isn't against the law?
Pish.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
"self given right" ... "as long as you're on their property, you follow their rules." maybe in the 19th century.
We did away with that, at least Mr Hardie did, long long ago. That's what the struggle was all about. Don't they teach that any more.
That depends on what the company does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
where would they teach it? in schools? where uniforms are neccessery. phones, cd players, make up, jewelry and many other things are banned. students must go into lessons at set times and if they don't their parents go to jail
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
When did parents go to jail because their children were late for a class.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
How often does that happen.
haha. you don't even knowQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Because there may be a specific law regarding what employess may do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Fair point, I can't argue with imbecility.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Fortunately I seldom, if ever feel compelled to.
JP, you complain about things that went out with the 19C, yet you seem to think that restrictive union practices which we disposed of over 20 years ago are still in effect. Hardie is dead and buried, but I doubt if he would have agreed with the distorted views put forward in his name.
You may not have noticed, but this is the 21st Century. Companies have rights too. It's their land, if they say that certain items aren't allowed on their property, it is their right to say so.
I can't help thinking that the NRA are on a loser with this one.
Really, who are "we", just so I know who I am talking to.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Hardie is indeed dead and buried, however some of us "left wingers" still hold certain things to be true. That the wealth belongs to those who make it, not to those who "own" the land, thro' inheritance.
Companies cannot make policies which over-ride the laws made by an elected Government. That's how democracy works, one man, one vote. That's what "we" fought and died for. "You" couldn't dispose of it then and you can't dispose of it now.
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showp...1&postcount=44Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Ah, you haven't noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Communism is dead. Like the minds of those who believed in it.
sourceQuote:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
Your co-worker is acting strangely again, and the NRA wants him to have his gun close by.
It was only a matter of time. The National Rifle Association thinks every employer in America should be required by law to allow workers to bring guns into the workplace, and the group's leader announced this week it will work to get state laws passed to ensure it. It doesn't matter if there are day care centers in the office, or hazardous materials: Workers, the group says, should have a Constitutional right to be armed. And they've added a boycott campaign of one business that has argued in court in the state of Oklahoma that it should have the right to ban firearms from the workplace.
"Is there no end to this?" asked Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "In state after state, the NRA has lobbied for the right to bring hidden, loaded handguns into churches, schools and bars -- and now even chemical plants. Is there any place in America where we shouldn't allow firearms?"
Specifically, the NRA has targeted petroleum company ConocoPhillips. A press release says the NRA will "spare no effort or expense ... Across the country, we're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said.
Is a company that prohibits guns in the workplace anti-gun? That's ridiculous. Companies bar guns from the workplace to protect the safety of workers and customers, to keep control over the security of their premises, and to prohibit behavior by potentially dangerous employees who threaten or intimidate other employees.
"America has seen terrible, deadly incidents arise when disturbed individuals bring guns into the office," Barnes said. "It is simply common sense that when a manager is faced with a situation where a troubled individual is showing the warning signs of danger, that manager should have the right, on private property, to make it clear that the firearms should be left home. The NRA says this is about individual rights, and we agree: It's about the individual rights of the majority of the individuals at work to have some level of assurance that they won't be shot."
Summaries of a few of the many incidents of workplace violence involving firearms follow.
-- At a Lockheed Martin assembly plant in Meridian, Miss. on July 9, 2003, "a white factory worker described as a menacing racist went on a murderous rampage, shooting four blacks and one white dead before killing himself. Dozens of employees at the aircraft parts plant frantically ran for cover after the gunman, dressed in a black T-shirt and camouflage pants, opened fire with a shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle during a morning break." Nine others were injured, including one critically, in the United States' deadliest workplace shooting in 2 1/2 years. "Authorities identified the shooter as Doug Williams, a man some employees described as a 'racist' who didn't like blacks. 'When I first heard about it, he was the first thing that came to my mind,' said Jim Payton, a retired plant employee who worked with Williams for about a year. He said Williams had talked about wanting to kill people. 'I'm capable of doing it,' Payton quoted Williams as saying." (Quoted material from the Associated Press.)
-- In Kansas City in July of last year, a 21-year-old worker at a meatpacking plant killed five people and wounded two others before killing himself. "Elijah Brown's co-workers always had a hard time making sense of him," MSNBC reported. "He paced, he talked to himself, he got bothered over teasing that wouldn't faze other people ... Police did not offer a motive for Friday's 10-minute rampage, but said there appeared to be nothing random about the killings at the Kansas City, Kan., ConAgra Foods Inc. plant. They said he passed by some co-workers, telling them, 'You haven't done anything to me, so you can go.' 'This person acted with purpose, he knew exactly what he was doing,' Police Chief Ron Miller said."
-- In July 2003, a Jefferson City, Mo., factory worker "was close to being fired for missing work too much before he pulled a gun in the middle of the plant floor and killed three co-workers, authorities said. Jonathon Russell, 25, later committed suicide in a gun battle with police outside the police station, investigators said. Investigators said he may have targeted certain people in the rampage, which followed a shift change at the industrial-radiator factory late Tuesday. Police said Russell had been accumulating work demerits stemming from his absences at Modine Manufacturing Co. and was facing the possible breakup of a romantic relationship. Two co-workers died along the manufacturing line where Russell had worked for two years. A supervisor, shot 50 feet away, died on the way to the hospital. Five other employees were wounded; their conditions ranged from good to critical." (Associated Press.)
There were 164 workplace shootings in the United States between 1994 and 2003, in which 290 people were killed and 161 were wounded.
source (pdf)
and me http://moderation.invisionzone.com/s...ault/PWNED.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It's disingenuous to draw parallels between Keir Hardie and this company rule, as Lynx asserted, Hardie would have no sympathy for your view, he had far more pressing things on his mind.
Quote:
At the age of eight Hardie became a baker's delivery boy. Hardie had to work for twelve and a half hours a day and for his labours received 3s. 6d. a week. With his step-father unemployed, and his mother pregnant, Hardie was the only wage-earner in the family.
Quote:
In January, 1866, Hardie's younger brother was dying and after spending most of the night looking after him, he arrived late for work. His employer sacked him and also fined him a week's wages as a punishment for his unpunctuality.
Worrying about guns in car parks, l don't think so!Quote:
Hardie argued that people earning more than a £1,000 a year should pay a higher rate of income-tax. Hardie believed this extra revenue should be used to provide old age pensions and free schooling for the working class.
I wouldn't even bother agruing what is, and what isn't in the company rules. Its not like they are trying to be a dictatorship. This particualr rule is for the saftey of everyone. Shootings in the workplace seem to have been on the rise, and its the managements obligation to keep the workers safe :blink:
Really though, I have not worked for anyone who searches cars, so if someone is terminated for having one, they were stupid and were seen with it. Also, don't know about yours, but my workplace doesn't have metal detectors either, so in reality, there is nothing to prevent someone walking into the building with one :huh: This is one of those policy's that is meant to make people feel safe, but actually doesn't do a thing :dry:
So the position we have arrived at is, a company makes a rule you follow it. Fit in or fuck off as they say.
Our American colleagues hold their employers "rights" to be more important than their own constitutional rights, fair enough.
So your employer bans you from having a gun, in your locked car, in their car park and you say fair enough. It's your car park, which means you can make any rule you wish and if I fail to agree with this it's OK to sack me.
Can you not extrapolate what this means. That whilst on company time / property they own you, that you are a slave. Whether the rule relates to your job or not. You have guns in your home because you are big bad dudes, but teacher says don't bring toys to school and your reply is "ok, sorry miss". The land of the brave and the home of the free, my arse.
you're not a slave. you aren't forced to work thereQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Please look up hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
The point is that citizens of the USA are saying that employers "rights" outweigh their own constitutional rights. Which I find laughable.
An employer should have the right to make rules about anything relating to your ability to do the job, for which they pay you and nothing else. So they can tell you not to come to work drunk, but have no right to tell you what to do whilst on holiday, or what you have in your car (unless it relates in some way to your ability to do your job).
Employers have constitutional rights too, and some of them apply to private property, as they do to citizens. As a private citizen you have the right to insist that anyone coming on to your property, by car or any other means, does so without guns. Why should an employer not have the same rights?
I'm not familiar with the US constitution, could someone show me this part as it would be easier to comment on if I could read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
I only read the 1st couple of pages so sorry if this has already been said...
JP, stop being an arse.
Guns are a Health & Safety issue and a security issue.
Every company has an obilgation for both, and can be sued if they dont have policies that cover that type of thing.
Camera's, expecially in places with confidential/secure data, are also a security risk, and they have to be banned.
Red Socks are neither... however, many companies have dress codes, and i'd assume socks of such bad taste would be covered :snooty:
i think not wanting your employees shooting each other is about more than just image and i don't think stopping people killing eachother is really a regretable leapQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
thinking about it. i've never been allowed to wear red socks. hardie must be turning in his grave :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Our US friends do not see their constitutional rights as sacrosanct after all. This big "Constitution" appears to be no more than guidelines.
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Apparently can mean "You can have a gun locked in your car, unless your boss says you can't."
Like I said, home of the free my arse. They're deluding themselves.
True, but their delusions do give the rest of the west some levity and humour. Let 'em be ;)
Riiiight, you still never answered..Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I mean your answer (eventually) didn't even follow the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Perhaps you haven't read the thread.
I was the one arguing that they (companies) shouldn't be able to do it. Other people were saying that it was OK for them to do it.
Why would I answer a question which basically said "please provide evidence to support the case you are against". That's just mad talk.
Ask whypickonhim, who reckons they have a constitutional right. I have asked that someone post such a thing for me to read / consider. So far nothing has appeared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
sourceQuote:
The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
So you don't have an absolute right to bear arms, like people seem to suggest. However we also need to remember the following, from the same source.
That aside, in essence if the particular State has passed laws to allow the company to make such rules, then pas de problem. He broke the rules, he got sacked.Quote:
The reader can easily see from the above that there are two (2) opposing approaches to the Second Amendment at work here. These two approaches are a debate over textual interpretation.
1. a collective approach (sometimes called a states' rights or militia-centric approach)
2. an individual approach (sometimes called an individual, fundamental, or personal rights approach)
The collective approach is more consistently favored by the courts, and involves an insistence that the founding fathers clearly intended a "well-regulated militia", not a bunch of individual Americans possessing weapons that could only be used today against their neighbors.
The individual approach is that the amendment guarantees the rights of people, otherwise the founding fathers would have said the rights of states. It is further argued that well-armed individuals can defend themselves better from crime, citing an estimated 2.5 million defensive gun usages (DGU) a year. Gun ownership is a personal freedom because you can determine your own fate, and this right is near the top of the list of fundamental freedoms.
Of course I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
You think a company can't have ANY rules unless it passes legislation.
Also, with your level of thinking the gentlemen should be able bring his gun into the office and keep in his cubicle..........'cause he can bear arms. For that matter he can wear it on his hip.
Also, with your level of thinking, with the right to bear arms, there should be no gun control or guidelines...just the right.
It is disputed as many things are with regards to liberties and the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I think companies can have rules which relate to your ability to do your job. e.g. In some cases that may mean a dress code, in others it wouldn't.
I don't think he should have a gun at all, however I was under the impression that he had an absolute constitutional right to it. I was always given that impression. Now it has been pointed out to me that is not the case.
I therefore think that, if relevant State legislation permits them to have such a rule, then they are entitled to do so. One assumes that it would be a health and safety thing. If he then breaks it, they can sack him and obviously did. I don't see his defence against this.
I was taking part in a discussion on "constitutional right" v "company rules". It transpires there was no such issue, you don't have such a constitutional right. So I re-evaluate based on the new information (which vidcc provided).
Sorry, you're confusing me now.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Didn't you post
that seems quite clear. Your "right to bear arms" is not protected by your constitution. It's a matter for States, or local Governments to decide.Quote:
The Second Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. This means two things: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental personal right; and state and local governments are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose.
It "seems" that way to me as well however not all agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
your quote highlighted that there was disputed interpretation. The paragraph after your quote highlights this
However the constitution is not just about guns and this case is a question of can you have your legally owned guns on private property and can a company dismiss you for breaking company policy. A policy that employees would have to sign agreement to.Quote:
Individual rights advocates, like the NRA, interpret the word "people" to mean citizens as individuals. Collective right advocates, like the HCI, interpret the word "people" to mean the collective body, as in the American people. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by individual rights advocates to mean the retention of personal firearms in the home, the free carrying of them elsewhere, and learning how to handle them. "Keep and bear" are interpreted by collective right advocates in the military sense that soldiers "bear" arms, civilians "carry" them, and society doesn't need citizen-soldiers since we have arsenals and public barracks in the form of police. The word "arms" is interpreted by individual rights advocates as anything suitable for militia or military purposes (the insurrectionist argument). The word "arms" is interpreted by collective right advocates as weapons suitable for hunting or self defense only. Each side seems to pick and choose whatever interpretive approach suits their purposes, but these are the most common interpretations. Hardy (1986) presents a nice word-by-word breakdown of the Second Amendment in terms of collective v. individual approaches, and argues for a hybrid, or dual purpose, approach
In this case it isn't about the ability to do ones job. It is about safety. Anyone that believes a gun kept in a car is "secured" in my mind is being a little naive. I think it takes longer to blow ones nose than it does to gain access to a car. And there have been a few cases where people "arm up" in the heat of the moment.
Another part is common sense. It isn't impossible to park elsewhere if you feel you must have that gun in your car.
Sorry, I'm causing confusion.
If the state in question has laws which allow the company to have such a ban.
If the company has the ban in force.
If he knowingly broke the ban.
If it's a sackable matter.
Then they have every right to sack him.
Based on what the link you provided shows, it's a "no brainer".
The important issue is whether the laws of the state allow this.
If however people are arguing that he did in fact have a constitutional right to own / bear the weapon but that the company was still entitled to sack him, then they are arguing that State law / company policy is more important than your constitution.
Which is what I find to be strange, particularly as I always thought you chaps held the constitution to be sacrosanct.