[shadow_dog]

GD, I have never seen such a bickering and arguing people in all my life as what I see here. Instead of telling one another not to come over and so much outrage, what about a group hug? I think a group hug and some warm milk, cookies and chicken noodle soup might do you all some good. Hell, forget that, what about a get together over a few cold ones? If a "beer summit" is good enough that guy, it should be good enough for GNG.

Anyway, as bad as I hate to admit it, the Co does set the rules. Could be like my employer-no guns, ammo, primers (yes primers) and pocket knives on property. We all had to sign papers to the affect. Till I get a much better job or retire, I will abide by the rules. One way I look at it is they have paid me thus far to allow me to maintain my lifestyle and buy as many weapons as I want in my personal life.

[Restless28]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

The gun sheep are almost as bad. HH

No argument there.

[Atlas]

Wow..
I've ripped briefly through the discussion that ensued since this morning.

I am as much a 2nd amendment advocate as anyone.
What we are discussing here though is an agreement you make voluntarily with an employer.
They tell you up front when you are negotiating for employment "we don't allow firearms on our property, including the parking lot".

Then they give you the opportunity to agree to abide by that policy or refuse to be their employee.

I don't care for that policy nor the attitude behind it, but it's their billion-dollar investment.
VW spent $1,000,000,000 to build that facility.
Managing any business of that scope and scale is damn complicated.
Companies like VW do what they feel they must to manage their risks and maximize their profits. It's what they do, their reason for existence.

No one is forced to work there, they agree with VW on the terms of that employment.


Again, I'm not defending or trying to justify it, but then I'm not an employer.


Times are tough and people need jobs?
How is that VW's problem?



About my comment that "insurance companies run this country"..
I did not say that an insurance company dictates the specific policy to forbid guns on company property (though they may for all I know)..
I was only commenting on the average/typical corporate attitude regarding anything that someone in management (the employer or the insurance company's management) may deem to be a risk of liability.


About 10 years ago I did an automation design project at the Mercedes facility in Alabama.

The day before I arrived someone had a shotgun in their truck, with the deal to trade or sell to another employee. When the guy brought the shotgun out of his truck he had a negligent discharge, putting holes in the side of someone's car.

Does that mean no one should be allowed to have firearms in their car on Mercedes' property? Of course not, but Mercedes' management doesn't see it that way.
(there was an existing policy against guns in the parking lot at that time)
You can be assured that this was reported to Mercedes' insurance company, and you can be damn sure that the insurance company had a sit-down meeting with Mercedes' management regarding enforcement of that policy.

Their property, their rules.

I was told by a Mercedes employee, but don't know/wasn't there to see it that they had gun-sniffing dogs walked through the parking lot from time to time.
Knowing Mercedes security as I do (or did at the time) I can easily believe it.

[Flying-Dutchman]

If the company does not charge you to park in their lot you are ahead of the game. Yep, some companies are that cheap.

These no gun on company property rules are probably decades old; nothing new here.

You can always park on the street and walk.

Or like doctors that CCW at work in some urban hospitals against the rules due to the clientele.

You make a risk/reward calculation and take your chances.

[RGbiker]

Part of the problem exist with state politicians who fall over each other offering low tax rate/incentives to major companies wish to build in that state.

Rail links and highway improvements, at taxpayer expense, built to satisfy the company request.

Building goes up, no guns in parking lot sign is posted and some poor unarmed schumck leaving second shift worries if he'll get home in one piece.

10 years ago, as a supervisor, I had to discipline a coworker who was found with a .45 in his car. He car pooled from Philadelphia and another coworker riding along was a drug user that got sniffed out by our drug dog. car was then searched and gun found.

Gun owner lived in a bad section of Philly and was robbed twice coming home from second shift work. He had both police reports to prove this. He also had a hard to obtain Philadelphia LTC permit.

Our Code of Ethics clearly specified that no personal firearms were allowed on state property.

I couldn't support firing this man, therefore I recommended a formal counseling for the infraction of having a personal weapon on Institution property.

I don't know how he protected himself when going home thereafter and I didn't ask.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by RGbiker

Part of the problem exist with state politicians who fall over each other offering low tax rate/incentives to major companies wish to build in that state.

Rail links and highway improvements, at taxpayer expense, built to satisfy the company request.

Building goes up, no guns in parking lot sign is posted and some poor unarmed schumck leaving second shift worries if he'll get home in one piece.

10 years ago, as a supervisor, I had to discipline a coworker who was found with a .45 in his car. He car pooled from Philadelphia and another coworker riding along was a drug user that got sniffed out by our drug dog. car was then searched and gun found.

Gun owner lived in a bad section of Philly and was robbed twice coming home from second shift work. He had both police reports to prove this. He also had a hard to obtain Philadelphia LTC permit.

Our Code of Ethics clearly specified that no personal firearms were allowed on state property.

I couldn't support firing this man, therefore I recommended a formal counseling for the infraction of having a personal weapon on Institution property.

I don't know how he protected himself when going home thereafter and I didn't ask.

Did or did not the employee know of the policy beforehand? HH

[cyphertext]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Your employer, maybe so.

Become an employee of companies like VW or BMW and they will tell you that their rules are the rules, including the parking lot.
You will be required to sign an agreement to that effect, which includes your termination if you violate those rules.

Not in Texas...

[cyphertext]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

How many people here work for oil refineries either as direct employees or subcontractors?

On practically every refinery that I've been to; even ones in the Great Freedom Republic State of Tejas, alcoholic beverages are forbidden even in locked vehicles parked in the refinery's parking lot. Not even empty cans and bottles are tolerated - zero tolerance. Alcoholic drinks are legal to own if one were of age, and can even be legally transported if stored per local laws and regulations. Yet the refineries have made zero tolerance policies pertaining to having alcohol on their premises.

Same with guns.

They're not infringing on your rights to keep and bear arms. They simply don't allow you to bear arms on their properties, even if those arms were locked up inside your vehicles.

Difference is that the right to defend oneself is protected here in Texas. The right to have a cocktail...not so much.

[RGbiker]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Did or did not the employee know of the policy beforehand? HH

Each and every worker received and signed for a copy of Pennsylvania Depart of Corrections Code of Ethics.

So, yes. He knew.

But how do you justify firing a good worker and family man simply because he wanted to protect himself while driving home into a bad neighborhood.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by cyphertext

Difference is that the right to defend oneself is protected here in Texas. The right to have a cocktail...not so much.

Are you saying the XXIst Amendment does not apply in Texas? HH

[HexHead]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

If they have the proper meat handling permits and hazmat permits, then yes.

See, governments tell businesses what they can or can't do all the time.

[cyphertext]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Are you saying the XXIst Amendment does not apply in Texas? HH

Correct me if I am wrong, but prohibition addressed the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcohol, not merely possession.

[shadow_dog]

FWIW, I have heard 2 different attorneys on talk shows about this very issue, They have both said to do not consent to a search of your vehicle by an employer. Then take it from there.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by HexHead

See, governments tell businesses what they can or can't do all the time.

Government can make laws requiring a corporation to do anything.

Incorporation is a government privilege.

[redbaron007]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Wow..
I've ripped briefly through the discussion that ensued since this morning.

I am as much a 2nd amendment advocate as anyone.
What we are discussing here though is an agreement you make voluntarily with an employer.
They tell you up front when you are negotiating for employment "we don't allow firearms on our property, including the parking lot".

Then they give you the opportunity to agree to abide by that policy or refuse to be their employee.

I don't care for that policy nor the attitude behind it, but it's their billion-dollar investment.

No one is forced to work there, they agree with VW on the terms of that employment.

I don't disagree with you. But on the other hand, the company is now dictating how you have to be off their property, to and from work. This is where I get the rub. Because of their policy on the property, it prohibits me off their property. I admit I don't have the answer.

Originally Posted by Atlas

About my comment that "insurance companies run this country"..
I did not say that an insurance company dictates the specific policy to forbid guns on company property (though they may for all I know)..
I was only commenting on the average/typical corporate attitude regarding anything that someone in management (the employer or the insurance company's management) may deem to be a risk of liability.

I apologize if I seemed rather harsh in my earlier comments about this. Your comment was not out of line; however, it is made by many frequently here and other forums. It is generally false (as with anything, there are exceptions; however, I have never seen any.). Having knowledge of these commercial insurance contracts, there is no provision/exclusion for firearms on the premises. Again, it is a scapegoat for a business/organization to use to shift the blame onto someone else.

Originally Posted by Atlas

About 10 years ago I did an automation design project at the Mercedes facility in Alabama.

The day before I arrived someone had a shotgun in their truck, with the deal to trade or sell to another employee. When the guy brought the shotgun out of his truck he had a negligent discharge, putting holes in the side of someone's car.

Does that mean no one should be allowed to have firearms in their car on Mercedes' property? Of course not, but Mercedes' management doesn't see it that way.
(there was an existing policy against guns in the parking lot at that time)
You can be assured that this was reported to Mercedes' insurance company, and you can be damn sure that the insurance company had a sit-down meeting with Mercedes' management regarding enforcement of that policy.

Their property, their rules.

I was told by a Mercedes employee, but don't know/wasn't there to see it that they had gun-sniffing dogs walked through the parking lot from time to time.
Knowing Mercedes security as I do (or did at the time) I can easily believe it.

Regarding the underlined, I doubt it was reported to their carrier. These organizations, especially multi-billion ones, generally have some level of self-insurance; for this size it wouldn't be surprising to see a minimum of $1 million to $10 million of self-insurance. Subsequently, there was no convo between the insurance co and Mercedes. However, did leadership within Mercedes have a convo with HR and erected/further develop a plan to help prevent this in the future.....oh, I wouldn't doubt it in the least. Did the corporate legal beagles discuss it for liability reasons, probably.

My whole deal with this subject is when does someone else rights over-ride mine? In this case, I voluntarily sign up with VW, does that mean I give up my rights to carry to/from work? As of right now, in some states, yep.



red

[fnfalman]

Originally Posted by cyphertext

Difference is that the right to defend oneself is protected here in Texas. The right to have a cocktail...not so much.

Does Texas have a law that allows for gun owners to pack on private properties like in Florida?

[fnfalman]

Originally Posted by shadow_dog

FWIW, I have heard 2 different attorneys on talk shows about this very issue, They have both said to do not consent to a search of your vehicle by an employer. Then take it from there.

The employer is not going to search your vehicle without consent, but then at the same time, they will ask for you to leave the premises. If you don't leave then that's trespassing.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

The employer is not going to search your vehicle without consent, but then at the same time, they will ask for you to leave the premises. If you don't leave then that's trespassing.

Some businesses have the policy that your vehicle is subject to search by your voluntary consent any time its on their property.
Refusal is considered reason for termination of employment.

Again, not something that makes me happy...
But it's the policy you agree to.

I worked last summer on a project for a defense contractor for 6 months. They are in a state with "shall issue" CCW laws.
Their policy is no firearms on our property including the parking lot, and vehicles are subject to search on demand.
(the search on demand policy is not specific to firearms... they do high-security work for the Navy and other military branches)

And they are located in a ghetto-ish high-crime area.
The campus, including the parking lot is in a secured fence with security guards, FWIW.

This week they've invited me to return for another project for 6 months or so.
I didn't hesitate to accept. They're great people to work with, they pay very well, and my last project with them was very successful.

[fnfalman]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Some businesses have the policy that your vehicle is subject to search by your voluntary consent any time its on their property.
Refusal is considered reason for termination of employment.

Again, not something that makes me happy...
But it's the policy you agree to.

Yep. Nobody puts a gun to your head and make you work for these companies.

It's very simple: unless the company's vehicle search policy or contents of vehicle is in contrary to state/local laws, you can't do squat about it except whine or find employment elsewhere.

One of these days, people will get in their heads that companies aren't in the business to support the Second Amendment. Or the First Amendment. Or any other amendments. They're in the business of making money.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

Yep. Nobody puts a gun to your head and make you work for these companies.

It's very simple: unless the company's vehicle search policy or contents of vehicle is in contrary to state/local laws, you can't do squat about it except whine or find employment elsewhere.

One of these days, people will get in their heads that companies aren't in the business to support the Second Amendment. Or the First Amendment. Or any other amendments. They're in the business of making money.

Over and out. HH

[glockski]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

I'd rather bone Michelle Obama than having you over.

You go do that, but something tells me she would rather be with Pelosi than do you

[fnfalman]

Originally Posted by glockski

You go do that, but something tells me she would rather be with Pelosi than do you

I don't mind watching.

[Silas.soule]

Originally Posted by mtpisgah

BMW in Spartanburg, SC has a no gun policy. If you don't like it, don't work for them. It would be no different than me saying to not bring a gun into my house when you come over for dinner. Not that I would do that though. Unless we were drinking, which is how it usually works out.

BMW also has a seatbelt policy while on the property, wear it or you can get fired.

The trouble with such a libertarian stance is this:

Picture the USA in 50 years. At the entrance to everything is a type of scanner that can detect a gun. Perhaps guns will have to be made with a chip, even, or perhaps scanners will just get smarter.

Once there is some kind of accident or crime involving a gun, lawyers will urge their cleints to ban guns.

Their clients being every retail business in the country.

You won't be able to carry anywhere. You won't be able to park in most places.

Politicians won't need to pass anti-gun legislation, as it will be moot.

[fnfalman]

Originally Posted by Silas.soule

The trouble with such a libertarian stance is this:

Picture the USA in 50 years. At the entrance to everything is a type of scanner that can detect a gun. Perhaps guns will have to be made with a chip, even, or perhaps scanners will just get smarter.

Once there is some kind of accident or crime involving a gun, lawyers will urge their cleints to ban guns.

Their clients being every retail business in the country.

You won't be able to carry anywhere. You won't be able to park in most places.

Politicians won't need to pass anti-gun legislation, as it will be moot.

Can't you shop online?

[Silas.soule]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

Can't you shop online?

Yeah, but we won't be able to go to the grocery, even.

Once some customer is somehow hurt by a gun and sues the business. They'll get a lawyer who will say that as the business could have put up a scanner and detected any gun, it needs to pay the victim. And start banning all guns.

Lawyers. Liability. Technology. Not good.