Employers Requiring The Right to Search Your Vehicle

[Jonnin]

just like the guns in the parking lot, a handful of powerful businesses that the government bribed to come to TN in the first place will flex their muscles to have these powers.  Cough, vw, cough.  The govt will comply lest they take their business elsewhere, along with the jobs.  I don't like it, but I almost rather have the jobs at this time...

Edited January 8, 2013 by Jonnin

[Dolomite_supafly]

WC does NOT cover you if you are injured going to or from work. The only exception is for certain circumstances involving LE, emergency personnel or anyone required to respond to an emergency by virtue of their position.

Dolomite

[E4 No More]

WC does NOT cover you if you are injured going to or from work. The only exception is for certain circumstances involving LE, emergency personnel or anyone required to respond to an emergency by virtue of their position.

Dolomite

That may depend on where you are. My mother died in a traffic accident and was covered by WC paying my father 1/3rd of her salary until the day he died. My niece, (who they had legal guardianship of), also got 1/3 or her salary until she reached 18 years old. The representative for WC is the one that told me that workers were covered to and from work because they are driving as a direct result of going to work, and it is considered a work function. Granted, that was in Missouri, so Tennessee may be different...but I doubt it.

Edited January 8, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[Dolomite_supafly]

There was an officer that was killed on his way home while in his patrol car. WC refused to pay saying he was not actively working. I have known a lot of people over the years injured in car accidents on the way to work and all of them did not collect a single dime of WC.

 

I have a close friend who was working a side job and tried to effect and arrest on someone with felony warrants. The bad guy ran my friend over with a car causing a lot of injuries. WC refused to pay saying he was not working his "regular" job. He fought it for years with attorneys and he has yet to see a single dime for compensation. Heck he even had to cover his medical bills when the jurisdiction he worked for refused to cover his injuries even though he was attempting to make an arrest. The jurisdiction said he wasn't "on the clock" for them even though they are salaried.

 

I do know of at least one that did receive some money but it was the employer who did it and not WC. And a few had employers who laid them off so they could collect unemployment. But none collected WC as a result of being injured on the way to or from work.

 

Dolomite

[E4 No More]

There was an officer that was killed on his way home while in his patrol car. WC refused to pay saying he was not actively working. I have known a lot of people over the years injured in car accidents on the way to work and all of them did not collect a single dime of WC.

 

I have a close friend who was working a side job and tried to effect and arrest on someone with felony warrants. The bad guy ran my friend over with a car causing a lot of injuries. WC refused to pay saying he was not working his "regular" job. He fought it for years with attorneys and he has yet to see a single dime for compensation. Heck he even had to cover his medical bills when the jurisdiction he worked for refused to cover his injuries even though he was attempting to make an arrest. The jurisdiction said he wasn't "on the clock" for them even though they are salaried.

 

I do know of at least one that did receive some money but it was the employer who did it and not WC. And a few had employers who laid them off so they could collect unemployment. But none collected WC as a result of being injured on the way to or from work.

 

Dolomite

It must be a state by state thing then. :shrug:

[KahrMan]

I am torn on this topic.  I see both sides.  As a gun owner and carrier I want to be able to carry my firearm where ever I go.  If a business says no firearms allowed, I try not to give them any of my business.  

 

As a small business owner, I strongly feel that this is my place, my rules.  If you do not like them, don't work for me.  I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and can not have on my property.  Before someone brings up the Disability Act, it is not the same thing.  You don't choose to be disabled, you choose to carry a gun.  Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with my employees carrying.  I have a huge problem with the state telling me what I can or can not allow on my own property or in my business.

[Oh Shoot]

It must be a state by state thing then. :shrug:

 

Yes. WC is not a federal program.

 

- OS

[m16ty]

I am torn on this topic.  I see both sides.  As a gun owner and carrier I want to be able to carry my firearm where ever I go.  If a business says no firearms allowed, I try not to give them any of my business.  

 

As a small business owner, I strongly feel that this is my place, my rules.  If you do not like them, don't work for me.  I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and can not have on my property.  Before someone brings up the Disability Act, it is not the same thing.  You don't choose to be disabled, you choose to carry a gun.  Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with my employees carrying.  I have a huge problem with the state telling me what I can or can not allow on my own property or in my business.

I understand what you are saying. I kind of feel the same way. It just depends on which you value more, property rights or gun rights. To me, they carry equal weight and that's why I'm torn.

[Sky King]

I am torn on this topic.  I see both sides.  As a gun owner and carrier I want to be able to carry my firearm where ever I go.  If a business says no firearms allowed, I try not to give them any of my business.  

 

As a small business owner, I strongly feel that this is my place, my rules.  If you do not like them, don't work for me.  I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and can not have on my property.  Before someone brings up the Disability Act, it is not the same thing.  You don't choose to be disabled, you choose to carry a gun.  Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with my employees carrying.  I have a huge problem with the state telling me what I can or can not allow on my own property or in my business.

I will not bring up the disability thing.  However if you have a parking lot for employees, visitors or customers, you will have to comply with other codes issues.  Number of parking spaces based on the size of your business, draining, lighting, marking and so on.   Buy a house these days and neighborhood associations will tell you what kind of window shades you have to put in your house.  I support private property rights.  I don't want somebody telling me what I can or can not do.  But it happens all the time, but that is not the real issue.  My car is MY private property.  What I have in that car, as long as it is legal for me to possess, is nobody's business but mine and as long as it REMAINS in that car, there is no harm or foul to the owner of the lot on which my car is parked.

 

Where would you draw the line on what an employer could dictate concerning the contents of your car?  If your place of employment is a no smoking facility, would you say they should be able to tell you could not keep a pack of cigarettes in your car?  Let's say you are Christian and your boss is an athiest, can he say you can't have a Bible in your car?  It's your car.  As long as any item, including a firearm, remains in the car, and not brought INTO the work environment, be it tobacco or a bible, it is nobodys business. 

[E4 No More]

I will not bring up the disability thing.  However if you have a parking lot for employees, visitors or customers, you will have to comply with other codes issues.  Number of parking spaces based on the size of your business, draining, lighting, marking and so on.   Buy a house these days and neighborhood associations will tell you what kind of window shades you have to put in your house.  I support private property rights.  I don't want somebody telling me what I can or can not do.  But it happens all the time, but that is not the real issue.  My car is MY private property.  What I have in that car, as long as it is legal for me to possess, is nobody's business but mine and as long as it REMAINS in that car, there is no harm or foul to the owner of the lot on which my car is parked.

 

Where would you draw the line on what an employer could dictate concerning the contents of your car?  If your place of employment is a no smoking facility, would you say they should be able to tell you could not keep a pack of cigarettes in your car?  Let's say you are Christian and your boss is an athiest, can he say you can't have a Bible in your car?  It's your car.  As long as any item, including a firearm, remains in the car, and not brought INTO the work environment, be it tobacco or a bible, it is nobodys business. 

Good points!

[E4 No More]

I am torn on this topic.  I see both sides.  As a gun owner and carrier I want to be able to carry my firearm where ever I go.  If a business says no firearms allowed, I try not to give them any of my business.  

 

As a small business owner, I strongly feel that this is my place, my rules.  If you do not like them, don't work for me.  I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and can not have on my property.  Before someone brings up the Disability Act, it is not the same thing.  You don't choose to be disabled, you choose to carry a gun.  Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with my employees carrying.  I have a huge problem with the state telling me what I can or can not allow on my own property or in my business.

The government does tell you what you can and cannot have on your property. They call them zoning laws among other things. They even tell you if you can own your property with eminent domain laws. :shrug:

[KahrMan]

The government does tell you what you can and cannot have on your property. They call them zoning laws among other things. They even tell you if you can own your property with eminent domain laws. :shrug:

So where does it stop?  How much control over over how I run my business do I have to give to the government.  

 

Bottom line is that I should be able to say what I want or do not want on my property.  Before anybody brings it up, I am not talking about whites only, blacks only, gay only etc.. Anybody is welcome at my business as long as I can make the rules about what they are allowed to bring with them.

[E4 No More]

So where does it stop?  How much control over over how I run my business do I have to give to the government.  

 

Bottom line is that I should be able to say what I want or do not want on my property.  Before anybody brings it up, I am not talking about whites only, blacks only, gay only etc.. Anybody is welcome at my business as long as I can make the rules about what they are allowed to bring with them.

Apparently you haven't kept up with the thousands of regulations Oblamo's administration has decreed just in the last few months. A law abiding employee's property in thier locked car should be the least of your concerns...unless you treat your employess like crap - which is what I think really drives this debate the most. And no, I'm not saying that you, in particular, treat your employees like crap, but I have seen many employers who do precisely that, and who should be afraid of who they screw over.

[KahrMan]

Apparently you haven't kept up with the thousands of regulations Oblamo's administration has decreed just in the last few months. A law abiding employee's property in thier locked car should be the least of your concerns...unless you treat your employess like crap - which is what I think really drives this debate the most. And no, I'm not saying that you, in particular, treat your employees like crap, but I have seen many employers who do precisely that, and who should be afraid of who they screw over.

I am well aware of the new regulations.  But again I ask, where does it stop?  What happens when the next group lobbies for what they believe in.  So what if  PETA successfully lobbies the govt.  Am I supposed to put posters up in my business that says eating meat is cruel?  Where does it stop.  When can I decide what to allow or not allow on my property.

[E4 No More]

I am well aware of the new regulations.  But again I ask, where does it stop?  What happens when the next group lobbies for what they believe in.  So what if  PETA successfully lobbies the govt.  Am I supposed to put posters up in my business that says eating meat is cruel?  Where does it stop.  When can I decide what to allow or not allow on my property.

As I said, what a law-abiding employee has in their car should be the least of your worries.

[KahrMan]

As I said, what a law-abiding employee has in their car should be the least of your worries.

 

It doesn't matter if you think I should be worried or not.  My place, my rules.  

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I see your point but ultimately I should be able to say what I want or do not want on my property.

Edited January 9, 2013 by KahrMan

[DaveTN]

It doesn't matter if you think I should be worried or not.  My place, my rules.  

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I see your point but ultimately I should be able to say what I want or do not want on my property.

Other than the obvious that is pretty much how it is now. That's why this bill is having such a hard time. kinda hard for the government to tell a business they have to allow guns in cars when they don't allow it for the public.

[RobertNashville]

No employer (or anyone else) should ever be able to search a person's vehicle unless it's with a law enforcement officer with a 1) warrant or 2) probable cause.  No one who doesn't own the vehicle has a "right" to know what is in that vehicle any more than than they have a right to know what is in a person's house.

[RobertNashville]

...As a small business owner, I strongly feel that this is my place, my rules.  If you do not like them, don't work for me.  I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and can not have on my property...I have a huge problem with the state telling me what I can or can not allow on my own property or in my business.

I can understand a business owner having a problem with the government applying regulations to property used for business purposes but the government has always been able to do so and has done so for most if not all of our nation's history...just as it can, does and in may cases, should apply regulations to actual private property (used for private purposes). The ONLY question is not whether the government "can" but whether the government should do so and that can only be decided on an issue by issue basis. Beyond that,  the ONLY impediment to such government regulations/requirements on property is the takings clause.

When good citizens carry their weapons with them, I think it's clear, based on both statistics, experience and common sense that there is a large overall benefit to society in general and to that citizen in particular for him/her to do so. It follows, then, that government should do what it can to facilitate and encourage the carrying of arms by removing as many impediments as possible.  In this case, by mandating that a parking lot owner can't forbid the existence of a firearm from within a vehicle when lawfully parked there.  If the parking lot owners could present a compelling argument for why this should not be the case then there might be something worthy of discussion but none of the employers who have been opposed to such legislation has ever presented a rational argument against...it always seems to come down to "my property my rules" and, while I don't mean to insult anyone, that argument sounds a bit like "it's my toy and I don't want him to play with it even though I wasn't playing with it". Or in other words; childish and without any real merit behind it (nor common sense for that matter).

 

With regards to the takings clause, when it comes to legally owned/transported firearms locked in a vehicle on an employer's parking lot, the issue of whether such "parking lot laws" violate the protections afforded the property owner under the takings clause has already been decided - in favor of the firearms legislation.

 

Finally, we now have quite a few yeas and quite a few states of history to show that these parking lot laws have not really been a problem for anyone (except maybe some bad guys who want to prey on some folks while they are commuting)...in fact, many of the same companies who have been most vocal in the Tennessee legislature against this legislation operate quite well and with no problems or incidents in states that already have similar legislation in place...it makes me wonder sometimes if these businesses just want to flex their muscles and get in a pissing contest with the legislature as I've yet to hear a rational argument to support their opposition to the legislation.

[KahrMan]

it makes me wonder sometimes if these businesses just want to flex their muscles and get in a pissing contest with the legislature as I've yet to hear a rational argument to support their opposition to the legislation.

 

My opposition is Where does it stop?  So lets say this passes.  Then it is logical to assume other speciality interests groups will try to pass their agendas.  I do not want to have to hang up a Eating Meat is Cruel poster because Peta had enough supporters to get it passed.

 

I should not have to allow something just because it has a lot of supporters.

[Worriedman]

My opposition is Where does it stop?  So lets say this passes.  Then it is logical to assume other speciality interests groups will try to pass their agendas.  I do not want to have to hang up a Eating Meat is Cruel poster because Peta had enough supporters to get it passed.

 

I should not have to allow something just because it has a lot of supporters.

You should not have to hang up any poster, but if a PETA supporter works for you, he ought to be able to keep that same poster in his trunk, hidden from view. You should not have to allow carry of a weapon on your property.  However, allowing a non felon to keep anything legal to possess IN their vehicle, out of sight, untouched and not displayed is a different thing, that falls under "Keeping" not wearing.  Should you be able to deny an employee to bring their golf clubs to work if they keep them in the trunk of their car?  Depending on the intent of their inclusion in the vehicle, they are weapons as well.

[RobertNashville]

My opposition is Where does it stop?  So lets say this passes.  Then it is logical to assume other speciality interests groups will try to pass their agendas.  I do not want to have to hang up a Eating Meat is Cruel poster because Peta had enough supporters to get it passed.

 

I should not have to allow something just because it has a lot of supporters.

It's not and never has been about whether something has a "lot of supporters" but even if it were I'd say the PETA argument is just a bit fanciful at best.

 

1. Individuals have a right to bear arms. 

 

2. Property owners have a right o enjoy their property as they see fit.

 

3. Government has a role and a responsibility to see that the rights of all are protected as much as possible while concurrently infringing on those rights as little as possible...that's why we have "noise ordinances" and zoning laws and may other restrictions/rules/requirements; a "guns in parking lot" bill is no different in concept or legality than your city telling you that you can't open a livestock slaughterhouse in your back yard in a residential area.

Edited January 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Other than the obvious that is pretty much how it is now. That's why this bill is having such a hard time. kinda hard for the government to tell a business they have to allow guns in cars when they don't allow it for the public.

Except that they do allow it; loaded if you have an HCP, unloaded for anyone provided you aren't a prohibited person (felon, etc..)

 

The ONLY reason our illustrious legislators have having a "hard time" with this is because many of them value their election campaign contributions from the likes of FedEx, Nissan, Bridgstone and others more than they value their alleged conservative principles.  This bill would have passed last session were it not for Maggart and her bosses (Harwell, Ramsey and Haslam).

Edited January 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

It doesn't matter if you think I should be worried or not.  My place, my rules.  

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I see your point but ultimately I should be able to say what I want or do not want on my property.

I hope you don't ever want something like nitroglycerin or methamphetamine on your property.

 

Let's have a hypothetical here: If you didn't want guns on your business and wanted to exercise a search of an employee's vehicle, are your going to apply that to your customers too?

[E4 No More]

My opposition is Where does it stop?  So lets say this passes.  Then it is logical to assume other speciality interests groups will try to pass their agendas.  I do not want to have to hang up a Eating Meat is Cruel poster because Peta had enough supporters to get it passed.

 

I should not have to allow something just because it has a lot of supporters.

You have to hang-up a handicap sign, don't you? I am legally handicapped, but let's say that I wasn't handicapped and didn't want wheelchairs on my property. How do you think that'd fly?