Question about "Parking Lot Bill"

[GEM-Texas]

The amusing thing about the property rights argument is that it is put forward as an abstract concept of your castle by zealots while the real reason companies and business put it forward is for sheer greed as they fear financial liability. They care nothing about your rights in any other domain. They are playing you if you believe in a almost theological view of properties as their motive.

When did you see a company go to the wall against requirements that a restaurant have a clean toilet. Isn't it their right to have a crappy crapper? You don't have to work for a company with a crappy crapper. The point that civil rights and antidiscrimination laws trump property rights has already been made. If one argues that owning a public business allows you to be a racist, the majority of the country has no use for you.

So be sucker for money grubbers and lawyers. The right of self-defense trumps a property rights argument based on greed.

[Jeff Barriault]

I like to look at things in terms of individual rights and freedoms. The view of our founders was that morally and ethically we are pretty much free to do just about anything as long as we don't violate the individual rights of another. The right to defend yourself is a god given right. If the government did not exist you'd still have that right. When you're on somebody else's property you still have the right to defend yourself. If they wish to tell you that you can't have a firearm to defend yourself then they are limiting the means by which you have to defend yourself, but you still have the right to defend yourself. So they haven't eliminated your right, only severely limited your methods.

But by limiting your ability to defend yourself the property owner is taking on additional liability. If they severely limit your means for defending yourself while on their property, then they need to somehow guarantee your safety. So employers attempt to do this through policies banning all firearms from the property. But what good is a policy against a criminal who simply ignores it? I would think companies would be wiser to limit their liability by requiring each employee to be responsible for their own safety.

Unfortunately property owners and employers don't think in those terms. So laws like the parking lot bill become a necessary compromise.

[johnferg69]

I work for a very large Arizona based company. Large as in 51,000 employees in 42 states. When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no. Their explanation was the company parking lot is private property so the parking lot bill doesn't apply to our company. When pressed on this issue the un-official "read between the lines" answer was we don't have to put we fired someone for having a firearm in their vehicle on their termination papers!

[thr_wedge]

I work for a very large Arizona based company. Large as in 51,000 employees in 42 states. When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no. Their explanation was the company parking lot is private property so the parking lot bill doesn't apply to our company. When pressed on this issue the un-official "read between the lines" answer was we don't have to put we fired someone for having a firearm in their vehicle on their termination papers!

Texas is an at-will employment state. No reason is necessary. "Your services are no longer needed".

Discretion is always best.

[joelamosobadiah]

I work for a very large Arizona based company. Large as in 51,000 employees in 42 states. When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no. Their explanation was the company parking lot is private property so the parking lot bill doesn't apply to our company. When pressed on this issue the un-official "read between the lines" answer was we don't have to put we fired someone for having a firearm in their vehicle on their termination papers!

I have a feeling that will be the standard answer. If they want to fire you for something they'll do so and deal with it later if you decide to fight it.

[sjfcontrol]

After passage of the Parking Lot bill, what excuse would they have for searching your car in their lot?
Without a search, how would they ever know it's there, unless you either tell somebody, or somebody sees it (perhaps coworkers when you drive the gang to lunch?)

Seems to me a "well-concealed" firearm in your car would not be found.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I work for a very large Arizona based company. Large as in 51,000 employees in 42 states. When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no. Their explanation was the company parking lot is private property so the parking lot bill doesn't apply to our company. When pressed on this issue the un-official "read between the lines" answer was we don't have to put we fired someone for having a firearm in their vehicle on their termination papers!

I have a feeling that will be the standard answer. If they want to fire you for something they'll do so and deal with it later if you decide to fight it.

That's the same tactic tried when someone if fired for being 1) over 40 (health insurance costs); 2) female; 3) minority; 4) filing a worker's comp claim; 5) demanding overtime pay required by law; etc. Pretext terminations happen all the time and employers get sued. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't, but it always costs them money.

Of course some employers will fire employees for having a gun in the car, but I suspect they will be rare. Why run the risk for something that has absolutely no impact on your business, its operation, or its profitability? There are methods for proving the reason for termination was a pretext, but I'm not about to put that on an open forum where our enemies can see it.

Remember too that if an employee is terminated without giving a reason, then they may well file for state unemployment benefits. At that point, the employer either accepts it or challenges the request for benefits by claiming the employee was terminated for cause. If they challenge the request for benefits, they have to give the reason for termination and the ex-employee will get a copy of their reply. The unemployment benefits route is hardly the only way to learn of a pretext termination or to challenge it.

Employment-at-will merely means you can terminate someone without cause; it doesn't mean you can violate state or federal law. Many dishonest employers have learned that very costly lesson.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I work for a very large Arizona based company. Large as in 51,000 employees in 42 states. When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no. Their explanation was the company parking lot is private property so the parking lot bill doesn't apply to our company. When pressed on this issue the un-official "read between the lines" answer was we don't have to put we fired someone for having a firearm in their vehicle on their termination papers!

Make a note of your conversation and the exact quotes from the management level person with whom you talked. Statements like that are devastating when defending wrongful termination cases. (It would be nice if you had that conversation recorded! )

Chas.

[joelamosobadiah]

I work for a very large Arizona based company. Large as in 51,000 employees in 42 states. When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no. Their explanation was the company parking lot is private property so the parking lot bill doesn't apply to our company. When pressed on this issue the un-official "read between the lines" answer was we don't have to put we fired someone for having a firearm in their vehicle on their termination papers!

I have a feeling that will be the standard answer. If they want to fire you for something they'll do so and deal with it later if you decide to fight it.

That's the same tactic tried when someone if fired for being 1) over 40 (health insurance costs); 2) female; 3) minority; 4) filing a worker's comp claim; 5) demanding overtime pay required by law; etc. Pretext terminations happen all the time and employers get sued. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't, but it always costs them money.

Of course some employers will fire employees for having a gun in the car, but I suspect they will be rare. Why run the risk for something that has absolutely no impact on your business, its operation, or its profitability? There are methods for proving the reason for termination was a pretext, but I'm not about to put that on an open forum where our enemies can see it.

Remember too that if an employee is terminated without giving a reason, then they may well file for state unemployment benefits. At that point, the employer either accepts it or challenges the request for benefits by claiming the employee was terminated for cause. If they challenge the request for benefits, they have to give the reason for termination and the ex-employee will get a copy of their reply. The unemployment benefits route is hardly the only way to learn of a pretext termination or to challenge it.

Employment-at-will merely means you can terminate someone without cause; it doesn't mean you can violate state or federal law. Many dishonest employers have learned that very costly lesson.

Chas.

I completely agree.

The other thing that I think plays in here is that in most cases an employer wouldn't know their employee has a gun in their locked vehicle unless it's needed. If it's needed, I no longer care if I lose my job. I'm concerned about my life.

[Salty1]

"When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no."

I have a hard time understanding why somebody would ask that question to management in the first place, I am from the old school where I would never ask a question that I would not want to hear the answer. Why tip my hand when it can never have a positive impact on my position within the company. What somebody does not know cannot hurt me, what they do know very well could have a negative impact. They will now always assume that you have a firearm in your car and management does talk between themselves. Personally I prefer that my name stays out of such conversations.

[OCD]

Of course some employers will fire employees for having a gun in the car, but I suspect they will be rare. Why run the risk for something that has absolutely no impact on your business, its operation, or its profitability?

IDK but probably for the same reasons they do it now.

[kyreb]

After passage of the Parking Lot bill, what excuse would they have for searching your car in their lot?
Without a search, how would they ever know it's there, unless you either tell somebody, or somebody sees it (perhaps coworkers when you drive the gang to lunch?)

Seems to me a "well-concealed" firearm in your car would not be found.

Most of your major companies bring in dogs now. The dogs are very well trained. They can sniff out a single .22 short from outside a locked car.

Here, if a dog hits on your car, Security and HR give you the option of handing over your keys so they can look inside, or you can refuse their request and be immediately terminated.

[johnferg69]

"When I asked the management if they would be changing the employee hand-book where it states no firearms allowed in personal vehicles, the official answer was no."

I have a hard time understanding why somebody would ask that question to management in the first place, I am from the old school where I would never ask a question that I would not want to hear the answer. Why tip my hand when it can never have a positive impact on my position within the company. What somebody does not know cannot hurt me, what they do know very well could have a negative impact. They will now always assume that you have a firearm in your car and management does talk between themselves. Personally I prefer that my name stays out of such conversations.

In hind-sight maybe asking my employer if they're going to recognize my constitutional right is a mistake. I don't feel it was though. They may be suspicious of me possessing a firearm, but they know I'm aware of my rights, they know I stand my ground and they know I won't trust em in this matter.