Yep. :3 There was a policy change in a warehouse's work rules-beforehand guns weren't allowed in the workplace. It had been extended to include the parking lot, and so there was a search of cars using drug and gun sniffing dogs. The search was apparently unannounced-but the policy change was. The debate was whether the punishment was too harsh or were the workers given enough notice.
The points of debate were:
1. Does the company have a right to perform searches on other people's private property (i.e. the car)? 2. If so, does the company have the right to fire said employee over this search when the employee wasn't aware of the search?
We decided:
1. It's debatable-but the parking lot is the property of the company-and thus cars parked in it are completely under its jurisdiction as guests subject to the policies of the company. It would be the same as person A inviting B over to their place, and insisting that the other person not bring a gun-and then when they come B brings it anyway, and A searches their bag while B isn't looking. Is A at fault for not telling B or is B at fault for breaking A's trust?
2. Companies often, when hiring, have potential employees sign a contract that means they will agree and follow the rules of the employer, and do have the right to fire said employee if they break the contract. This does often include the employee agreeing to be subject to random drug tests and/or searches. In this case, the warehouse would be completely justified.
3. Which leads to 3-the article we were given to read stated that it was unclear whether memos or notifications of the new policy change were distributed in a timely fashion. If not, then the warehouse is at fault, if they were, then the employees were at fault.
4. The main reason this was likely brought up was that this policy potentially might lead to defiance of the second Amendment: all men have the right to bear arms. Of course, no one expects or wants people bringing guns into the workplace. Whether the parking lot is included in the "workplace" or not is up to individual states or companies.
no subject
Yep. :3 There was a policy change in a warehouse's work rules-beforehand guns weren't allowed in the workplace. It had been extended to include the parking lot, and so there was a search of cars using drug and gun sniffing dogs. The search was apparently unannounced-but the policy change was. The debate was whether the punishment was too harsh or were the workers given enough notice.
The points of debate were:
1. Does the company have a right to perform searches on other people's private property (i.e. the car)?
2. If so, does the company have the right to fire said employee over this search when the employee wasn't aware of the search?
We decided:
1. It's debatable-but the parking lot is the property of the company-and thus cars parked in it are completely under its jurisdiction as guests subject to the policies of the company. It would be the same as person A inviting B over to their place, and insisting that the other person not bring a gun-and then when they come B brings it anyway, and A searches their bag while B isn't looking. Is A at fault for not telling B or is B at fault for breaking A's trust?
2. Companies often, when hiring, have potential employees sign a contract that means they will agree and follow the rules of the employer, and do have the right to fire said employee if they break the contract. This does often include the employee agreeing to be subject to random drug tests and/or searches. In this case, the warehouse would be completely justified.
3. Which leads to 3-the article we were given to read stated that it was unclear whether memos or notifications of the new policy change were distributed in a timely fashion. If not, then the warehouse is at fault, if they were, then the employees were at fault.
4. The main reason this was likely brought up was that this policy potentially might lead to defiance of the second Amendment: all men have the right to bear arms. Of course, no one expects or wants people bringing guns into the workplace. Whether the parking lot is included in the "workplace" or not is up to individual states or companies.
etc. etc. etc.