Wells Fargo Bank - vs - Fired Manager

[accessbob]

You are correct I did miss that part. That tends to happen when someone drones on and on about the ridiculous ways businesses should cater to their needs. It's not in a companies interest to provide you or anyone else a place to secure your weapon let alone provide armed security. If you don't have a vehicle and have to rely on public transportation just means you're SOL and have to play by more rules.

Back on topic. This lady got fired because she violated company policy. This will go no where in court.

Talk about droning on...

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Accessbob you bring up a fair point. Going to and from work you want to be able to defend yourself if needed. However you take public transit and don't have a car in which to store your gun while at work. So you carry and hope for the best. This just illustrates there are seldom easy answers to life's problems. Your needs of self defense are directly at odds with the company needing to have a "weapons free" work environment. Unfortunately for your rights, the company will win because it is private property (in most cases) and company policy that is conveyed to folks when hired. Myself, I have chosen less lethal tools to aid me should, God forbid, I need to defend myself. I carry a Sunwayman flashlight and a cell phone. Is it a foolproof defense? No. For that matter though, neither is having a gun

 

[The Heretic]

I hope she wins. If your buisnees is open to the public then you should not have any right to discriminate against the constitutional rights of anyone including employees.

Sorry, but within the workplace this is not always true. You have the right to speak your mind (Freedom of Speech) but your employer has the right to fire you if they find your speech *on the job* objectionable.

 

[mccullogh]

If the courts can force a bakery to serve customers they don't want to serve then they should be able to force employers to accept licensed concealed carry holders. But of course there is a double standard when it comes to guns.

I think the bakery is different case. They did not simply refuse service as they had actually sold items to these customers before. What the state wants to do is force the bakery to enter into a contract to make a special cake. The implications are much more dire.

 

[pchewn]

Yes, the company does have the right to develop and enforce wrong policies. I endorse their right to be wrong.

 

[gryghin]

I've heard from co-workers that traveled to Isreal for work, that the Global company that I work for (there is a 85-95% chance your PC is using parts made by said company) provides lockers at the entrance of the facility for weapon storage. These lockers were being used for handguns and rifles, and the site contacts for the company all carried. So, even in a global company the policies can be different dependent on circumstance.

 

[CoastRange57]

doesnt sound like a pro 2A company. I've never understood the gun free zone idea, its not the lawfully carrying employees you have to worry about.

You are funny. I did not have rules regarding firearms. I carried, my foreman carried, the office manager carried. We traveled a lot and were often on the road. We worked the way we lived. That was the advantage of owning the company.

That being said, I do favor a business's right to make rules it sees fit with out some whimpering son of a bi**h claiming their rights were violated. I also favor a persons right to choose to work or not work at a company who's policies they find unacceptable. There is the door. A business does get to push the limits in regards to 1st, 2nd amendment rights. That is just business.

One of the reasons I started and ran my own business's for over 25 years, was that I was tired of some dumb basta*d making stupid rules, jacking me over on pay and expenses, and holding me accountable when the goal posts were moved every other month.

Unfortunately in today's employment society, people are a disposable item. You can hire and fire at will, and create the work force you want. To expect a business to accomodate you in matters they clearly do not have a legal obligation to do so, is advocating nanny state government.

 

[Koda]

Sorry, but within the workplace this is not always true. You have the right to speak your mind (Freedom of Speech) but your employer has the right to fire you if they find your speech *on the job* objectionable.

I understand that, thats why concealed means concealed..... the same as not saying anything objectionable.

 

[Koda]

You are funny. I did not have rules regarding firearms. I carried, my foreman carried, the office manager carried. We traveled a lot and were often on the road. We worked the way we lived. That was the advantage of owning the company.

That being said, I do favor a business's right to make rules it sees fit with out some whimpering son of a bi**h claiming their rights were violated. I also favor a persons right to choose to work or not work at a company who's policies they find unacceptable. There is the door. A business does get to push the limits in regards to 1st, 2nd amendment rights. That is just business.

One of the reasons I started and ran my own business's for over 25 years, was that I was tired of some dumb basta*d making stupid rules, jacking me over on pay and expenses, and holding me accountable when the goal posts were moved every other month.

Unfortunately in today's employment society, people are a disposable item. You can hire and fire at will, and create the work force you want. To expect a business to accomodate you in matters they clearly do not have a legal obligation to do so, is advocating nanny state government.

My bad, I didnt mean to assume anything about how you ran the company. I understand what you mean about how buisness are run.


my only opinion in this thread is that companies that deal with the public should not be able to discriminate against their employees from the same rights as the public regardless if the storefront is private property.

 

[CoastRange57]

My bad, I didnt mean to assume anything about how you ran the company. I understand what you mean about how buisness are run.


my only opinion in this thread is that companies that deal with the public should not be able to discriminate against their employees from the same rights as the public regardless if the storefront is private property.

It is not discrimination by definition of the law. It does not make it right, but not discrimination. Discrimination has to fit a defined class to be discrimination.

The difference between an employee and the general public is that an employee / employer relationship is a defacto contract, where each side gets something and receives consideration in return. Not so the public who or may not enter the property depending upon the rules. They can enter, conduct business or leave at their pleasure.

An employee has rules and restrictions on their own personal movement and behavior to the pleasure of the business owners and management.

Outside of this 2A issue, the government is already up in most business's face, even though the rotten bastar*s on Wall Street keep hosing the US economy. Being forced to operate under these restrictions as far as 2A, opens the door for a huge issue with every other issue or potential issue.

This issue has been tried many times, and the private property person thing has been upheld.

 

[pchewn]

Discrimination has to fit a defined class to be discrimination.

True, for ILLEGAL discrimination. (e.g. based on gender, national origin, race, religion)
False for LEGAL discrimination. (e.g. based on intelligence, physical appearance, work ethic, experience, whether or not you carry a gun, etc....)

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Discrimination is a good thing.. every time you see a hot stove burner and decide not to touch it, you discriminate

 

[Koda]

Coastrange is right about the definition of discrimination. My opinion is similar to pchewn's comment, its still possible to discriminate legally but in my eye if it discriminates against the basic constitutional rights then it should be illegal, at least in any place open to the public. No, I'm not saying you can scream fire... or saying you can brandish a weapon while at work... I'm saying you should accommodate the constitutional rights of all as the law applies to them. (see CHL means concealed logic).

Side note: for the purpose of this conversation my definition of discrimination has to do only with constitutional or civil rights not choosing not to touch a stove or hang out with a certain group or not buy a product etc. I've heard that argument before but its not discrimination to me its just taking a personal preference.

 

[pchewn]

Full Definition of DISCRIMINATE

transitive verb
1
a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of
b : distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2
: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

Discriminate just means to distinguish one thing from another based on some characteristic. Some characteristics are illegal to use as discriminating factors, some are legal.

 

[RicInOR]

I saw a good comment about the differences between public space and private property.

If you have a public space, then you can be held to a different standard than if you have just private property.

""public place" and "public property" are not synonyms. If you, the owner of private property, open that property to the public, it is a public place. It's still private property, which gives you the right to ask people to leave, but that has no bearing on the privacy expectations of the people on your property."
Woman Wearing Google Glass Says She Was Attacked In San Francisco Bar « CBS San Francisco