Science > Abortion > NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2005 08:35:31 AM |
| Object: |
NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
In related news, the ACLU demand that movie theaters let their patrons
yell "FIRE!" in the middle of a movie.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/200508/20050804_1.asp
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1821 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 08:49:39 AM |
|
|
In article <pub3f1d089190q2l6lqc8j4md6g1e00gph@4ax.com>,
eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com says...
In related news, the ACLU demand that movie theaters let their patrons
yell "FIRE!" in the middle of a movie.
Yeah, but that's because the NRA is boycotting the theater for not
allowing customers to bring guns into the theater. Therefore, they know
that yelling "Fire" won't result in some redneck taking wild pot shots
into the crowd.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bunson Honeydo" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 09:47:29 AM |
|
|
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 08:38:54 PM |
|
|
Bunson Honeydo <kwittmann@wi.rr.com> wrote:
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
The company has every right to decide whether you are allowed to bring
weapons onto THEIR property.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS.
Tough *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 10:09:30 AM |
|
|
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
Yeah they do. You see, they OWN the gas station. They get to say what
they want on their property. Just like I can tell you that you cant
come in my house with a gun, or that you cant smoke in my house.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 10:04:03 AM |
|
|
In article <5UpIe.596$mb4.580@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
kwittmann@wi.rr.com says...
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity
That's not what's occurring. They are saying that it is *THEIR* private
parking lot and that they do not want guns ON the PREMISES. In case you
can't figure out why they don't want that, they don't want the LIABILITY
of one worker walking out to his car, gettting a gun and shooting a co-
worker over some minor work dispute. It is their right to tell their
employees that they can't bring their guns to work and this includes the
parking lot. By your argument all employees could traipse around work
with a gun belt and six shooters dangling from them.
They should have there ***** siued off.
Look, I support sane gun rights. I would like to see more guns in the
hands of responsible people. But if you don't understand the danger of
having guns in the workplace then you are not one of the responsible
people who can handle gun ownership.
It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Like I say, I'd like to see the formation of volunteer citizen militias
for homeland defense. I'd like to see armed citizen patrols in high
crime neighborhoods. I think that concealed carry licenses should be
available for responsible individuals. But the main problem is that the
people who are often the most fanatic about gun ownership are the least
responsible. It is legal for gun ownership to be "well regulated"
according to the second amendment.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 08:59:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 09:49:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bunson Honeydo" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 10:36:45 PM |
|
|
I have never heard of the smoking analogy. At a public school I have heard
this but this is of course cause Smoking would be an illegal substance to
underage HS students..car or not. The guns were legal. And a car is your
domain under the law. that's why cops have to ask for search unless of
"probable cause" just like your home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
05 Aug 2005 03:07:56 AM |
|
|
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
I have never heard of the smoking analogy. At a public school I have heard
this but this is of course cause Smoking would be an illegal substance to
underage HS students..car or not. The guns were legal. And a car is your
domain under the law. that's why cops have to ask for search unless of
"probable cause" just like your home.
The car is your domain. The employer can easily say "You want to keep
your car on our property, then you let us look in it." It is not really
any different to a sports stadium saying that they wont let you into
the game unless they look in your bag.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bunson Honeydo" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
05 Aug 2005 05:17:56 AM |
|
|
I can see that. That is at least level headed and makes sence. In that case.
The men should be warned about the guns being left at home. I did not see
they had the chance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Gunsto Work |
06 Aug 2005 02:14:42 PM |
|
|
Munson Honey do wrote:
I can see that. That is at least level headed and makes sence. In that case.
The men should be warned about the guns being left at home. I did not see
they had the chance.
Who the ***** are you responding to? Could yoo learn to quote?
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Gunsto Work |
06 Aug 2005 01:47:21 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Alcohol.
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
One guy, in Detroit I believe, has banned employees from smoking. So far
he has gotten away with it.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,1032,00.html
Halfway across the country, in Okemos, Michigan, four people lost their
job as a result of smoking. Health care company Weyco Inc. has enacted a
company policy prohibiting its employees from smoking, not just on
company premises or during work hours, but at home and away from work as
well. On January 1, the policy was instituted, allowing tobacco-using
employees to be fired.
To enforce the policy, the company has instituted unannounced random
tests. First, selected employees are required to submit a breath sample.
If they test positive, the employees are subject to disciplinary action,
which includes unpaid suspension for a minimum of five days and
termination with the second offense. Four employees refused to take the
tests and were fired.
The company points to concerns over employee health and rising health
care costs as reasons behind its decision to adopt the smoking prohibition.
According to a company release, the action is part of an effort to
promote healthy living, which it began establishing five years ago. The
tobacco-free policy went into effect in 2003, which included
smoking-cessation classes for tobacco users. The company estimates that
at the time the policy was implemented, 15 to 20 of its approximately
200 employees were smokers. As many as 14 of the smokers gave up the
habit before the policy went into effect.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
06 Aug 2005 01:54:37 PM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Alcohol.
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
One guy, in Detroit I believe, has banned employees from smoking. So far
he has gotten away with it.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,1032,00.html
Halfway across the country, in Okemos, Michigan, four people lost their
job as a result of smoking. Health care company Weyco Inc. has enacted a
company policy prohibiting its employees from smoking, not just on
company premises or during work hours, but at home and away from work as
well. On January 1, the policy was instituted, allowing tobacco-using
employees to be fired.
To enforce the policy, the company has instituted unannounced random
tests. First, selected employees are required to submit a breath sample.
If they test positive, the employees are subject to disciplinary action,
which includes unpaid suspension for a minimum of five days and
termination with the second offense. Four employees refused to take the
tests and were fired.
The company points to concerns over employee health and rising health
care costs as reasons behind its decision to adopt the smoking prohibition.
According to a company release, the action is part of an effort to
promote healthy living, which it began establishing five years ago. The
tobacco-free policy went into effect in 2003, which included
smoking-cessation classes for tobacco users. The company estimates that
at the time the policy was implemented, 15 to 20 of its approximately
200 employees were smokers. As many as 14 of the smokers gave up the
habit before the policy went into effect.
--
While I am not a smoker, after reading this article I figured that it
will not be long before the company is sued and probably loses
millions.
I am all for a smoke free working environment, but when you go and tell
people they can't do something that is "legal" on their own
time...that's CRAZY.
"...Michigan doesn't have such a law. Weyco has not been sued over its
policy, but Taibelson and other attorneys speculate a legal challenge
is just a matter of time. Some legal experts believe Weyco's policy,
which includes random testing of employees for nicotine with a
breathalyzer, may violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act,
Taibelson said.
These days more clients are seeking Taibelson's counsel on how to craft
workplace smoking policies."
http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/health_care/industry_regulation/2005/07/25/milwaukee_focus3.html?t=printable
"The lawsuit was filed last Wednesday, two days before the ban took
effect. Opponents claim the smoking ban ordinance approved by voters
Nov. 2 is arbitrary and unconstitutional."
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=629
"While I agree with having people refrain from smoking at work, where
the health of others would be jeopardized, I wouldn't condone a move
to fire anyone who smokes on his own time, on principle. If companies
fear the long-term healthcare costs associated with employees who
smoke, they should take a look at other behavioral patterns that may
lead to the same financial outcome. For instance, why not look at an
employee's traffic violations? Doctor visits? Sleep patterns? Eating
habits?"
http://monster.typepad.com/monsterblog/2005/01/lighting_up_can.html
Some lawyers are going to have a very fat pocket!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Gunsto Work |
06 Aug 2005 03:04:11 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
nJb wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Alcohol.
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
One guy, in Detroit I believe, has banned employees from smoking. So far
he has gotten away with it.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,1032,00.html
Halfway across the country, in Okemos, Michigan, four people lost their
job as a result of smoking. Health care company Weyco Inc. has enacted a
company policy prohibiting its employees from smoking, not just on
company premises or during work hours, but at home and away from work as
well. On January 1, the policy was instituted, allowing tobacco-using
employees to be fired.
To enforce the policy, the company has instituted unannounced random
tests. First, selected employees are required to submit a breath sample.
If they test positive, the employees are subject to disciplinary action,
which includes unpaid suspension for a minimum of five days and
termination with the second offense. Four employees refused to take the
tests and were fired.
The company points to concerns over employee health and rising health
care costs as reasons behind its decision to adopt the smoking prohibition.
According to a company release, the action is part of an effort to
promote healthy living, which it began establishing five years ago. The
tobacco-free policy went into effect in 2003, which included
smoking-cessation classes for tobacco users. The company estimates that
at the time the policy was implemented, 15 to 20 of its approximately
200 employees were smokers. As many as 14 of the smokers gave up the
habit before the policy went into effect.
--
While I am not a smoker, after reading this article I figured that it
will not be long before the company is sued and probably loses
millions.
I am all for a smoke free working environment, but when you go and tell
people they can't do something that is "legal" on their own
time...that's CRAZY.
"...Michigan doesn't have such a law. Weyco has not been sued over its
policy, but Taibelson and other attorneys speculate a legal challenge
is just a matter of time. Some legal experts believe Weyco's policy,
which includes random testing of employees for nicotine with a
breathalyzer, may violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act,
Taibelson said.
These days more clients are seeking Taibelson's counsel on how to craft
workplace smoking policies."
http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/health_care/industry_regulation/2005/07/25/milwaukee_focus3.html?t=printable
"The lawsuit was filed last Wednesday, two days before the ban took
effect. Opponents claim the smoking ban ordinance approved by voters
Nov. 2 is arbitrary and unconstitutional."
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=629
"While I agree with having people refrain from smoking at work, where
the health of others would be jeopardized, I wouldn't condone a move
to fire anyone who smokes on his own time, on principle. If companies
fear the long-term healthcare costs associated with employees who
smoke, they should take a look at other behavioral patterns that may
lead to the same financial outcome. For instance, why not look at an
employee's traffic violations? Doctor visits? Sleep patterns? Eating
habits?"
http://monster.typepad.com/monsterblog/2005/01/lighting_up_can.html
Some lawyers are going to have a very fat pocket!!
I can't believe Bush missed you for his SC nomination.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
08 Aug 2005 12:28:45 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
nJb wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Alcohol.
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
One guy, in Detroit I believe, has banned employees from smoking. So far
he has gotten away with it.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,1032,00.html
Halfway across the country, in Okemos, Michigan, four people lost their
job as a result of smoking. Health care company Weyco Inc. has enacted a
company policy prohibiting its employees from smoking, not just on
company premises or during work hours, but at home and away from work as
well. On January 1, the policy was instituted, allowing tobacco-using
employees to be fired.
To enforce the policy, the company has instituted unannounced random
tests. First, selected employees are required to submit a breath sample.
If they test positive, the employees are subject to disciplinary action,
which includes unpaid suspension for a minimum of five days and
termination with the second offense. Four employees refused to take the
tests and were fired.
The company points to concerns over employee health and rising health
care costs as reasons behind its decision to adopt the smoking prohibition.
According to a company release, the action is part of an effort to
promote healthy living, which it began establishing five years ago. The
tobacco-free policy went into effect in 2003, which included
smoking-cessation classes for tobacco users. The company estimates that
at the time the policy was implemented, 15 to 20 of its approximately
200 employees were smokers. As many as 14 of the smokers gave up the
habit before the policy went into effect.
--
While I am not a smoker, after reading this article I figured that it
will not be long before the company is sued and probably loses
millions.
I am all for a smoke free working environment, but when you go and tell
people they can't do something that is "legal" on their own
time...that's CRAZY.
"...Michigan doesn't have such a law. Weyco has not been sued over its
policy, but Taibelson and other attorneys speculate a legal challenge
is just a matter of time. Some legal experts believe Weyco's policy,
which includes random testing of employees for nicotine with a
breathalyzer, may violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act,
Taibelson said.
These days more clients are seeking Taibelson's counsel on how to craft
workplace smoking policies."
http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/health_care/industry_regulation/2005/07/25/milwaukee_focus3.html?t=printable
"The lawsuit was filed last Wednesday, two days before the ban took
effect. Opponents claim the smoking ban ordinance approved by voters
Nov. 2 is arbitrary and unconstitutional."
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=629
"While I agree with having people refrain from smoking at work, where
the health of others would be jeopardized, I wouldn't condone a move
to fire anyone who smokes on his own time, on principle. If companies
fear the long-term healthcare costs associated with employees who
smoke, they should take a look at other behavioral patterns that may
lead to the same financial outcome. For instance, why not look at an
employee's traffic violations? Doctor visits? Sleep patterns? Eating
habits?"
http://monster.typepad.com/monsterblog/2005/01/lighting_up_can.html
Some lawyers are going to have a very fat pocket!!
How about American Cyanamid Corporation, who told 5 women they would be
fired or at least transferred out of (high paying) jobs working with
lead pigments unless they were sterilized? They got a whopping $10,000
fine for that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
12 Aug 2005 08:01:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
osprey wrote:
nJb wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Alcohol.
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
One guy, in Detroit I believe, has banned employees from smoking. So far
he has gotten away with it.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Daily/CA_Daily_News/0,2342,1032,00.html
Halfway across the country, in Okemos, Michigan, four people lost their
job as a result of smoking. Health care company Weyco Inc. has enacted a
company policy prohibiting its employees from smoking, not just on
company premises or during work hours, but at home and away from work as
well. On January 1, the policy was instituted, allowing tobacco-using
employees to be fired.
To enforce the policy, the company has instituted unannounced random
tests. First, selected employees are required to submit a breath sample.
If they test positive, the employees are subject to disciplinary action,
which includes unpaid suspension for a minimum of five days and
termination with the second offense. Four employees refused to take the
tests and were fired.
The company points to concerns over employee health and rising health
care costs as reasons behind its decision to adopt the smoking prohibition.
According to a company release, the action is part of an effort to
promote healthy living, which it began establishing five years ago. The
tobacco-free policy went into effect in 2003, which included
smoking-cessation classes for tobacco users. The company estimates that
at the time the policy was implemented, 15 to 20 of its approximately
200 employees were smokers. As many as 14 of the smokers gave up the
habit before the policy went into effect.
--
While I am not a smoker, after reading this article I figured that it
will not be long before the company is sued and probably loses
millions.
I am all for a smoke free working environment, but when you go and tell
people they can't do something that is "legal" on their own
time...that's CRAZY.
"...Michigan doesn't have such a law. Weyco has not been sued over its
policy, but Taibelson and other attorneys speculate a legal challenge
is just a matter of time. Some legal experts believe Weyco's policy,
which includes random testing of employees for nicotine with a
breathalyzer, may violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act,
Taibelson said.
These days more clients are seeking Taibelson's counsel on how to craft
workplace smoking policies."
http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/health_care/industry_regulation/2005/07/25/milwaukee_focus3.html?t=printable
"The lawsuit was filed last Wednesday, two days before the ban took
effect. Opponents claim the smoking ban ordinance approved by voters
Nov. 2 is arbitrary and unconstitutional."
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=629
"While I agree with having people refrain from smoking at work, where
the health of others would be jeopardized, I wouldn't condone a move
to fire anyone who smokes on his own time, on principle. If companies
fear the long-term healthcare costs associated with employees who
smoke, they should take a look at other behavioral patterns that may
lead to the same financial outcome. For instance, why not look at an
employee's traffic violations? Doctor visits? Sleep patterns? Eating
habits?"
http://monster.typepad.com/monsterblog/2005/01/lighting_up_can.html
Some lawyers are going to have a very fat pocket!!
How about American Cyanamid Corporation, who told 5 women they would be
fired or at least transferred out of (high paying) jobs working with
lead pigments unless they were sterilized? They got a whopping $10,000
fine for that.
It's amazing what these companies will try to get away with. What I
find so ironic is the same people who will ***** about airport
screening and how long it takes, and claims their rights are being
violated are the same type of people who praise companies doing these
types of things to their employees.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
12 Aug 2005 08:02:56 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1123892092.388908.58590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
It's amazing what these companies will try to get away with. What I
find so ironic is the same people who will ***** about airport
screening and how long it takes, and claims their rights are being
violated are the same type of people who praise companies doing these
types of things to their employees.
really? could you cite a few examples of that behavior?
--
"Yes, I served in combat during Desert Storm." --Osprey (lying about his
military service) Message-ID: <1116416113.714744.65540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
05 Aug 2005 05:28:33 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:59:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
Wrong. Property owners are absolutely able to dictate what happens on
their property.
It is legal for me to walk down the street shirtless and smoking. But
stores can and do ban me for not being properly attired and for my
cig.
Just on a gut level, I'm siding with the employer of this one. But yet I can't
think of anything else to compare this issue to. What else can you have in your
car while it's parked on their property that they could have you fired for
possessing? Anything they want so long as it's made known upon employment that
such action will result in your termination? Or are there more specific classes
of items? Again, I stress - items that you are _legally_ in possession of.
Pornography? Actual naked people? Stinky cheese?
Also if I understand it correctly, a business could even ban smoking in their
parking lots, even done in the car with the windows shut. That would be at
least _one_ comparable legal activity you could be removed from the premesis
for. Am I mistaken? :-?
Just curious.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 09:51:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:47:29 GMT, "Bunson Honeydo"
<kwittmann@wi.rr.com> wrote:
If th4e guns are legal to carry or to have in your car then the company has
no right to terminate employment based on the poscession of legal properity.
Really? So, you're saying that a property owner doesn't have the right
to say that guns will not be allowed on the property? When did that
happen?
They should have there ***** siued off. It doesnt matter one damn that you
dont like guns. its still BS. If it was a copy of a Mike Moore movie youd be
shitting yourself screaming police state.
No, actually. This is a perfect case of how private property rights
are being eroded. Congratulations, you're on the same side as those
idiots who made it legal to take someone's private property and give
it to a private developer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bunson Honeydo" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 04:33:05 PM |
|
|
being in there fcar is not on there property. Regardless of where the car
sits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 04:52:23 PM |
|
|
In article <lQvIe.646$mb4.126@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
kwittmann@wi.rr.com says...
being in there fcar is not on there property. Regardless of where the car
sits.
They don't have to let you enter the parking lot, which is their
property, unless you agree to abide by the rules. The car itself is
certainly on their property, creating liabilities for the company if
you have various kinds of contraband, such as drugs or fire arms
inside it. Furthermore, you don't have to work at the company if
you don't like their policy. Employees agreed to abide by company
policies governing the work place. This can include acceptable
dress code, speech codes and yes, what materials are permissible at
work. They don't have to give you a parking space at all, if you
don't choose to abide by the policies.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
07 Aug 2005 01:42:18 AM |
|
|
They don't have to let you enter the parking lot, which is their
property, unless you agree to abide by the rules. The car itself is
certainly on their property, creating liabilities for the company if
you have various kinds of contraband, such as drugs or fire arms
inside it.
actually, courts strike down contractual provisions all the time.
And they also strike down limitations on liabilities.
Employees agreed to abide by company policies governing the work
place
again, the courts have ruled that company policies can't go against
public policy. EG you are not allowed to force your employees to
abide by discrimination on the basis of skin color.
Notwithstanding the above, I feel that Conoco is within their legal
rights. I don't like it and I will fight it by boycott.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bunson Honeydo" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 05:52:47 PM |
|
|
They can fire you for pocession of legal material. The fact you dislile
guns doesnt matter. Whats in your car is your propterty and they have no
right to comment on it. Taking out of the car thats totaly different.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Gunsto Work |
06 Aug 2005 01:32:33 PM |
|
|
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
They can fire you for pocession of legal material. The fact you dislile
guns doesnt matter. Whats in your car is your propterty and they have no
right to comment on it. Taking out of the car thats totaly different.
You'll have the chance to advance that argument from the unemployment line.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 07:03:10 PM |
|
|
In article <3%wIe.662$mb4.92@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
kwittmann@wi.rr.com says...
They can fire you for pocession of legal material.
Again, you didn't pay attention to what was said, nor have you
apparently mastered the not-so-difficult art of spelling. The issue
is that Conoco owns the parking lot and they don't have to let you
enter or park there. Furthermore, right-wing judges have decided
that employers can limit employee behavior at work in all kinds of
specific ways which might not otherwise be permissible outside the
workplace. If this policy violated any laws or actual rights then
the NRA would be suing already, rather than merely boycotting. The
fact that they are boycotting only and not suing suggests that they
know Conoco is within their legal rights. If you wanted more
freedom at work then you would have to support liberty, and by
extension liberals.
The fact you dislile
guns doesnt matter.
I made it crystal clear that I want to see more guns in the hands of
responsible people. I strongly support gun ownership and gun usage
when they are regulated responsibly, as the constitution allows.
Whats in your car is your propterty and they have no
right to comment on it.
They have a right to deny you usage of their parking lot, among
other things.
Taking out of the car thats totaly different.
I suppose next you're going to tell me that you're some sort of
legal expert despite your demonstrated functional illiteracy.
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bunson Honeydo" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
04 Aug 2005 08:20:48 PM |
|
|
spellign dont make a hill of *****.. If you are so shallow to bother with
that crap on a forum like this its obvious you have no real contribution to
discussion
What is in your vehicle wich is your property is not the business of anybody
regardless of where the vehicle is sitting. thats the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Gunsto Work |
06 Aug 2005 01:35:46 PM |
|
|
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
spellign dont make a hill of *****.. If you are so shallow to bother with
that crap on a forum like this its obvious you have no real contribution to
discussion
What is in your vehicle wich is your property is not the business of anybody
regardless of where the vehicle is sitting. thats the law.
Wrong, that's not the law. Some companies won't even allow employees to
have beer in their car on company property. So far no court has ruled
against them.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
06 Aug 2005 01:38:30 PM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
spellign dont make a hill of *****.. If you are so shallow to bother with
that crap on a forum like this its obvious you have no real contribution to
discussion
What is in your vehicle wich is your property is not the business of anybody
regardless of where the vehicle is sitting. thats the law.
Wrong, that's not the law. Some companies won't even allow employees to
have beer in their car on company property. So far no court has ruled
against them.
That's probably because no company forced a search on an employees
vehicle.
They can ban all they want, but when it comes to searching..well my
friend you just entered into a whole new arena.
They can request a consent to search.
Let's say you have a beer in your car. It's not opened, you just
purchased some beer and you have it in a little cooler for after work.
The company ask if they may search your car.
You say, "yes".
They start looking around and notice your cooler. You see the "private"
security officer go for the cooler. You say, "stop the search".
He continues.
You got a law suit now.
You are expected some privacy within your own vehicle. They have to
stop when you say stop. Unless there is probably cause and they are
looking for evidence linked to a criminal matter, (having a unopened
beer can or a legally purchased gun isn't a criminal matter) they will
have to allow you to go through.
They could fire you for refusing, but then again..another law suit.
The company has to prove that the search was "reasonable".
Most company's who have a search policy are smart enough to know to
pretty much leave the search area confined to..
a) the employee (upon consent)
b) the locker (again, upon consent..unless it's in a school..consent
not needed)
c) the work area (again, consent needed)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Gunsto Work |
06 Aug 2005 03:02:42 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
nJb wrote:
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
spellign dont make a hill of *****.. If you are so shallow to bother with
that crap on a forum like this its obvious you have no real contribution to
discussion
What is in your vehicle wich is your property is not the business of anybody
regardless of where the vehicle is sitting. thats the law.
Wrong, that's not the law. Some companies won't even allow employees to
have beer in their car on company property. So far no court has ruled
against them.
That's probably because no company forced a search on an employees
vehicle.
They can ban all they want, but when it comes to searching..well my
friend you just entered into a whole new arena.
They can request a consent to search.
Let's say you have a beer in your car. It's not opened, you just
purchased some beer and you have it in a little cooler for after work.
The company ask if they may search your car.
You say, "yes".
They start looking around and notice your cooler. You see the "private"
security officer go for the cooler. You say, "stop the search".
He continues.
You got a law suit now.
You are expected some privacy within your own vehicle. They have to
stop when you say stop. Unless there is probably cause and they are
looking for evidence linked to a criminal matter, (having a unopened
beer can or a legally purchased gun isn't a criminal matter) they will
have to allow you to go through.
They could fire you for refusing, but then again..another law suit.
The company has to prove that the search was "reasonable".
Most company's who have a search policy are smart enough to know to
pretty much leave the search area confined to..
a) the employee (upon consent)
b) the locker (again, upon consent..unless it's in a school..consent
not needed)
c) the work area (again, consent needed)
I'll notify Chevron that they are best advised to hire those people
back. Do you have a phone number I can have them call?
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: NRA to Boycott Gas Station: They Won't Let Employees Bring Guns to Work |
06 Aug 2005 03:33:06 PM |
|
|
nJb wrote:
osprey wrote:
nJb wrote:
Bunson Honeydo wrote:
spellign dont make a hill of *****.. If you are so shallow to bother with
that crap on a forum like this its obvious you have no real contribution to
discussion
What is in your vehicle wich is your property is not the business of anybody
regardless of where the vehicle is sitting. thats the law.
Wrong, that's not the law. Some companies won't even allow employees to
have beer in their car on company property. So far no court has ruled
against them.
That's probably because no company forced a search on an employees
vehicle.
They can ban all they want, but when it comes to searching..well my
friend you just entered into a whole new arena.
They can request a consent to search.
Let's say you have a beer in your car. It's not opened, you just
purchased some beer and you have it in a little cooler for after work.
The company ask if they may search your car.
You say, "yes".
They start looking around and notice your cooler. You see the "private"
security officer go for the cooler. You say, "stop the search".
He continues.
You got a law suit now.
You are expected some privacy within your own vehicle. They have to
stop when you say stop. Unless there is probably cause and they are
looking for evidence linked to a criminal matter, (having a unopened
beer can or a legally purchased gun isn't a criminal matter) they will
have to allow you to go through.
They could fire you for refusing, but then again..another law suit.
The company has to prove that the search was "reasonable".
Most company's who have a search policy are smart enough to know to
pretty much leave the search area confined to..
a) the employee (upon consent)
b) the locker (again, upon consent..unless it's in a school..consent
not needed)
c) the work area (again, consent needed)
I'll notify Chevron that they are best advised to hire those people
back. Do you have a phone number I can have them call?
Tell you what, you show us people who were fired for not allowing a
search in their vehicle by a private company.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
