Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Car Searches
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12552		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  tman065 [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
johngagemn wrote:
I did not suggest you waltz into the boss's office, demand they change the policy, and tell them you are going to violate the existing policy. For good God's sake, you have to have a game plan on this stuff.

Me: Hey boss, you got a second?

Boss: Sure, what do you need?

Me: Well, I just wanted to let you know about something I found out over the weekend. You know that policy we have about banning employees having guns, even locked in their cars out in the parking lot?

Boss: Yeah, what about it?

Me: Well, it turns out that MN statute says that we're not supposed to do that. Apparently it specifically says that we have to allow employees to carry in the parking lot, and to store it in their vehicle. A friend of mine told me about it, so I looked it up and sure enough, here it is. (Provide printed copy of the statute.)

Boss: Huh. No kidding. Thanks for letting me know, I'll forward it on to HR so they can look into it.


Boss: Why did you look at that particular policy, John? Do you keep a gun in your car while you're at work?

You: ? (your wise answer here)
Author:  djeepp [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 
johngagemn wrote:
Me: Hey boss, you got a second?


I'm guessing most of us don't have this kind of relationship with the "Boss". The boss I would have to approach is many levels above me. Besides that, I would need to approach HR first and they would have to escalate it. Now, at least six people know I carry. Chances are pretty good I've already encountered a few anti's by this point.

Like I said, pretty risky.
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 
jdege wrote:
Brixius wrote:
Which is really saying we reserve the right to search your car and you can't say no.

You can say no. If the company searches your car without your consent, you can sue. Note: the policy does not say "by accepting employment you are granting the company authority to search your car whenever it sees fit." The policy you quoted simply says that your refusing a search constitutes a violation of company policy. Which would be grounds for dismissal. But no more.


If you break into a vehicle, even if it's on your own property...you can face charges of breaking into a car and property damage.

This probably is not the best economy to be exercising your rights to carry with idiotic employers though.
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:48 am ]
Post subject: 
djeepp wrote:
I'm guessing most of us don't have this kind of relationship with the "Boss". The boss I would have to approach is many levels above me. Besides that, I would need to approach HR first and they would have to escalate it. Now, at least six people know I carry. Chances are pretty good I've already encountered a few anti's by this point.

Like I said, pretty risky.



I pushed the issue at a company I used to work at... It basically boils down this AT WILL EMPLOYMENT.

Even though the company banned firearms, I could have showed up to work open carrying if I wanted to. Of course they could fire me... it's their choice.

Now I'm a consultant and if they want my help they abide by my rules. :P It's amazing how accommodating people become when they need help.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
The policy is in conflict with state law. Get me a copy of the policy and the name of the company, and MADFI will send them a notification. That way, you're completely anonymous, and we can see if we can get them to make it compliant with the law at no risk to you.
Author:  kecker [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andrew Rothman wrote:
The policy is in conflict with state law. Get me a copy of the policy and the name of the company, and MADFI will send them a notification. That way, you're completely anonymous, and we can see if we can get them to make it compliant with the law at no risk to you.


I'm a big fan of that.

But until that, or if that gets no results, I'm a big fan of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I store my firearm in my vehicle and don't say peep about it. They don't know to ask, nor reason to ask. They stay ignorant, I stay protected. Everyone is happy....either out of security or ignorantly bliss.
Author:  Binky .357 [ Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Andrew Rothman wrote:
The policy is in conflict with state law. Get me a copy of the policy and the name of the company, and MADFI will send them a notification. That way, you're completely anonymous, and we can see if we can get them to make it compliant with the law at no risk to you.


Not to pick nits here, but a lot of times (and definately at my place of employment) company policies are considered "confidential" and disclosure to an outside party constitutes a violation of that "confidentiality".

In fact, in some cases, merely printing out a relevant page of the policy and bringing it home with the intention of posting it to the web could constitute a fireable offense.

To go one step further; our company has been publishing a weekly newsletter for a while, sort of like their own brief version of Pravda. In last weeks edition of out own little propaganda newsletter, we're basically told that anything good we have to say about our place of employment is fair game, but anything bad is strictly a no-no.
Author:  Lawyer_in_Training [ Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Business is not a democracy.
If you don't like your employer, quit.
Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lawyer_in_Training wrote:
Business is not a democracy.
If you don't like your employer, quit.


Not a democracy but nonetheless a relationship governed by tradition, law, and regulation. The idea that employers are sole definers of the employment relationship and that employees have no recourse but to quit has not been widely held since the 19th century.
Author:  TLRSKUNK [ Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
State Law is State law. If the employer is not abiding by take Andrew advice and forward it anonymously.

Even if disclosure is against policy they cannot enforce a policy that is against state law. just like state laws cannot override federal laws.

If they could override state law minimum wage would mean nothing(not that minimum wage is good enough for living on anyways)
Author:  JC Knute [ Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
The initial posting of this thread quoted company policy.

<It is the intent of the Company to provide a safe and secure workplace for employees, clients, clients' customers, visitors and others with whom we do business.>

It would seem the company is taking on a HUGE liability with that policy. Other than banning guns on the premises, what other active role is the company providing. Are there armed security personnel available to protect the employees, etc. from outside sources that may access the site. Is there a search of "employees, clients, clients'customers, visitors and others" to prevent armed people from accessing the site? Does the company only rely on local law enforcement to "prevent" violence on the site.

Given the wide range of violence that makes the news, from schools, offices, court rooms, shopping centers, etc, what is the company doing. This seems like a good question to pose to upper management. After all, the security, relief of anxiety, and real protection should be foremost in their mind for the successful continuation of the business.
Author:  johngagemn [ Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:17 am ]
Post subject: 
tman065 wrote:
johngagemn wrote:
I did not suggest you waltz into the boss's office, demand they change the policy, and tell them you are going to violate the existing policy. For good God's sake, you have to have a game plan on this stuff.

Me: Hey boss, you got a second?

Boss: Sure, what do you need?

Me: Well, I just wanted to let you know about something I found out over the weekend. You know that policy we have about banning employees having guns, even locked in their cars out in the parking lot?

Boss: Yeah, what about it?

Me: Well, it turns out that MN statute says that we're not supposed to do that. Apparently it specifically says that we have to allow employees to carry in the parking lot, and to store it in their vehicle. A friend of mine told me about it, so I looked it up and sure enough, here it is. (Provide printed copy of the statute.)

Boss: Huh. No kidding. Thanks for letting me know, I'll forward it on to HR so they can look into it.


Boss: Why did you look at that particular policy, John? Do you keep a gun in your car while you're at work?

You: ? (your wise answer here)


When I had that exact conversation with my boss there was no "wise answer" necessary. I guess I'll consider myself lucky to have an employer that doesn't dismiss everything that comes from the employees with prejudice.
Author:  Carbide Insert [ Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:26 am ]
Post subject: 
TLRSKUNK wrote:
...they cannot enforce a policy that is against state law. just like state laws cannot override federal laws.

:!:
Whaaaa....? Please tell me you really don't believe that.
Maybe you're from north of the border? That's certainly the system of government they have up there. Here though, it goes a little more like this:
As the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, of the US Constitution, the founders wrote:
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Or at least, it ought to.

For those like me who like to follow such crazy theories about the respecitve states legally being the ones in charge:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/200 ... solutions/ 8)

I know, I know, someone is going to argue that's just not the way it works. I pose a question to you: Which law would you personally choose to obey, if, hypothetically, there happened to be two laws in direct opposition to each other, one from .fed, and one from the MN legislature? Just curious.

As a general rule, when I hear that quote from people (and I hear it more often than one would think, surprisingly enough) it tends to send a bit of a shiver down my spine. There are not good things in the works coming from FedZilla, and when people are primed to believe that what they say trumps all, it gets me a little worried for what's left of the Republic... :cry:
Author:  jdege [ Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Carbide Insert wrote:
TLRSKUNK wrote:
...they cannot enforce a policy that is against state law. just like state laws cannot override federal laws.

:!:
Whaaaa....? Please tell me you really don't believe that.

I consider myself a strong supporter of federalism, and I believe that federal properly supersedes state law, in those specific areas listed in Article I in which the states ceded authority to the federal government.

Outside those areas, not so much.
Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Carbide Insert wrote:
[<...>
I pose a question to you: Which law would you personally choose to obey, if, hypothetically, there happened to be two laws in direct opposition to each other, one from .fed, and one from the MN legislature? Just curious. <...>

Easy... The just one.
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/