TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

chlag01 wrote:One issue might be that our corporate policy is written to cover all US sites. I know of a couple state-specific sections to cover California labor laws, but the corporate policies don't typically make state-by-state policy statements.

Texas came late to this rodeo. Oklahoma has had a similar law for years. It has been dragged through the courts and upheld. Georgia adopted one a couple of years ago. Any large corporation knows about this and is willfully ignoring it, if that is what they are doing.

By contrast, a few years back California passed a law requiring employers to provide the same benefits for unmarried domestic partners—straight or gay—that they provide for legally married couples. Many companies that had operations in California immediately made such a policy company-wide with little fuss.

I respect the attitude of modern-day Minutemen, but cruising under the radar has served me well for a long time.

BTW, my wife literally fired hundreds of people for violations of policy. Most were gross violations like faking time cards or stealing. A good manager can fire anyone. legally for some perfectly documented policy violation. If they decide after some incident to come up with a reason, they will offer you a transfer to the branch office in Burkina Faso.

- Jim

Oldgringo wrote:We're starting to wend our way home to the Pineywoods next week via the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Is Burkina Faso anywhere near our route home?

chlag01 wrote:My company has not updated their weapons policy since SB 321 took effect. I don't want to draw attention to myself, so it there an anonymous, free way to notify them that their policy violates the law and needs to be updated?

Dragonfighter wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Another angle to conside is that modern printers have been equipped with some kind kind
of micro ID which is able to be read and traced back to a particular printer.

If you wrote such a letter and printed it on your home printer, it would seem unlikely that your company
would be able to do enough detective work to determine it was from you. Law enforcement would be more
likely to have the power to find out your home computer's secret ID.

But if you printed it off on a company printer, there's more of a chance that your IT people may be aware
of all the company printers' hidden ID's. They could narrow it down to your departmental printer, and you
could draw your employer's attention to you.

SIA

Just a nit to pick, an IP address is in no way indicated on a printed document, but IPs sending jobs to printers are. So following the advice to print at home or anywhere not at work is sound; but even a forensics expert would be hard pressed to prove you printed it. That said, your oils do leave prints on paper so keep it strictly professional or where gloves.

chlag01 wrote:My company has not updated their weapons policy since SB 321 took effect. I don't want to draw attention to myself, so it there an anonymous, free way to notify them that their policy violates the law and needs to be updated?

sudo apt-get install mixmaster

RoyGBiv wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Another angle to conside is that modern printers have been equipped with some kind kind
of micro ID which is able to be read and traced back to a particular printer.

I was about to call you paranoid (DragonFighter beat me to it anyways ), but apparently it is me that is naive.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/big-broth ... again/2031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/g ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both pretty reputable sources.

jimlongley wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Another angle to conside is that modern printers have been equipped with some kind kind
of micro ID which is able to be read and traced back to a particular printer.

I was about to call you paranoid (DragonFighter beat me to it anyways ), but apparently it is me that is naive.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/big-broth ... again/2031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.pcworld.com/article/118664/g ... ments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Both pretty reputable sources.

Well, that was weird in a really uber weird kind of way. Because I have installed and maintained literally thousands of printers, I was interested in the article, particularly any information on how they could accomplish resolution beyond the capability of most printers, but when I opened the article, my computer rebooted.

I am going to try it from a different computer later.

tbrown wrote:Are you saying the parking lot isn't owned or managed by your employer?

chlag01 wrote:Another wrinkle: One building is leased by the Baylor MBA program (which may fall under one of the SB 321 exemptions), so if Baylor sets a no-gun policy, does that policy affect all the other tenants that may share the parking lot?

chlag01 wrote:Update. I decided to leave the unenforceable policy alone, and did not notify. However, they have now stepped up their game. As of today, there are new 30.06 signs posted at the parking lot entrances. I'm guessing they are placed by the property manager of the business complex my employer leases from.

I've started a new thread asking whether they've exploited an SB 321 loophole by having the property manager prohibit storing firearms in the parking lot instead of the employer.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-- Frustrated

The Annoyed Man wrote:I remember that, early on, 30.06 was intended to include only the "premises," which did not include parking lots

seamusTX wrote:I think the key point is that your employer can require searching your vehicle as a condition of employment (as many do). The owner of the property, who is not your employer and has no direct legal relation to you*, cannot search your vehicle. They can only ask, if they even care, and you can say No.