false compartments etc

[Fallguy]

Actually, what you're calling a contract is signed "under duress." They rarely stand up in court, any more than when a company tells you that you cannot work for a competitor for 5 years after you leave them.

Not that I disagree per se, but what duress? If you mean that you won't get the job if you don't sign it, I'm not sure that would count as duress.

I do agree something like not working for a competitor for 5 years etc...is rather meaningless unless they can "penalize" you in some way if you do.

[Guest Engloid]

Not that I disagree per se, but what duress? If you mean that you won't get the job if you don't sign it, I'm not sure that would count as duress.

I do agree something like not working for a competitor for 5 years etc...is rather meaningless unless they can "penalize" you in some way if you do.

That's exactly what I mean. They want you to sign a contract, under the threat of not getting the job if you don't sign it.

It is not any more meaningless than signage on a dump truck that says "not responsible for fallen debris." Some people may get a busted windshield and not file a claim, just because it's posted there. The same is true with the contract with an employer. You may have employees that consider leaving to a competitor, but won't because of the paper they signed.

My current employer has one of those contracts...but they know it's not worth the trouble of going to court over. It's just a deterrent.

[Fallguy]

That's exactly what I mean. They want you to sign a contract, under the threat of not getting the job if you don't sign it.

But that's what I'm saying.... That in itself is not duress. They are offering you a job, with stipulations...you can accept it or not.

As far as going to court, that goes both ways...if they fire you for not letting them search your car or for carrying on their property etc....contract or not, how many are going to get lawyer to try and get their job back?

The rest I pretty much agree with you on.

[Guest Engloid]

But that's what I'm saying.... That in itself is not duress. They are offering you a job, with stipulations...you can accept it or not.

That is your opinion, not the judgement of a court. Sometimes courts (juries) make rulings that many others disagee with, or that don't necessarily follow in accordance to the law.

I'm sure you have probably heard of Herbert Moncier. He's one of the lawyers that are always in the papers. He would tell you that, no matter what the law says, he has never been able to win a jury case in which a client was entrapped. Juries just don't buy it in Tennessee, regardless of what the law says entapment is.

[Fallguy]

That is your opinion, not the judgement of a court. Sometimes courts (juries) make rulings that many others disagee with, or that don't necessarily follow in accordance to the law.

I can't argue with that.

[Guest jackdog]

Under Tennessee law an employer does not have to give a reason for your termination.

[Guest Engloid]

Under Tennessee law an employer does not have to give a reason for your termination.

You're right, but if they don't have a good reason, they may very well wind up paying your unemployment. If they have a good reason, they're best off to state what it is. It doesn't really take much of a reason at all. We had a guy fired at work the other day and they told him straight out that it was because they didn't like his "work ethics."

[Guest canynracer]

That is my point to this whole thing....the reason for firing in this case would be that you failed to allow the search because they had reason to believe you were packing...

that reason to believe can be a witness that saw you stash it or anything...

remember, they own the parking lot, it IS company property.

[Guest canynracer]

if we can get this to pass, this whole conversation is moot

Senate Bill 2928, sponsored by State Senator Paul Stanley (R-31) and companion bill House Bill 3036, sponsored by State Representative Phillip Johnson (R-78), would ensure that employees are able to protect themselves as they travel to and from work by allowing them to store their firearms in their vehicles while at work. SB 2928 prohibits any operator or owner of any parking lot from baring firearms in private vehicles. Both bills are currently in their respective Judiciary committees

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3530

[chipperi]

Just wrote Ramsey and Mumpower who are my reps in the house and senate to vote for it.

[mdmoseley]

To be honest I don't think that one will get passed like it is. Nissan has too much pull in the area with the 4-5 plants they have here. They have a strict no guns policy even in cars. A friend who works there told me about a lady whose husband died. She had taken his car to work and had a flat tire. Well someone helped her change it and when they opened the truck her husband had left a shotgun back there. Fired her on the spot. They for one will make alot of noise. If it does get passed I could see it getting amended to allow companies to restrict access in gated (I would say secure but that's just a joke) areas.

[Guest canynracer]

It will be interesting...the company I work for has a very very similar policy as Nissan...One can only hope...especially since to and from work is on my time, and when I would need it the most.

Hopefully they can make an ammendment that will work for the masses, maybe unloaded, with ammo in glove box, and firearm in trunk, or unloaded in a "strong box" or something...

one can only hope