Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
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.
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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 there
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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 there
Please look up hyperbole.
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).
Re: 2nd amendment V private company
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?
Re: 2nd amendment V private company
Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
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.
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
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:
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually, from a practical point-of-view, the rule is aimed at keeping firearms out of the workplace proper, and, as to the other, out-of-sight, out-of-mind.
The current state of things legal, however, dictates that a company have such a guideline as a legal "hook" to indicate at least a minimal attempt at due-diligence in the event of a tragic work-place incident-as has been said in so many quarters in recent years, "image is everything".
This slogan has made some rather regrettable leaps.
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 leap
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
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:
thinking about it. i've never been allowed to wear red socks. hardie must be turning in his grave :cry:
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
JP, stop being an arse.
Oh, you misunderstand me, I'm more than happy with the outcome.
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.
Re: 2nd amendment V private comapny
True, but their delusions do give the rest of the west some levity and humour. Let 'em be ;)
