Why I love my college
Honors College Seminar 202-Ethics and Public Policy
Class #1, dated Thursday, January 28, 2010, from the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Topics of Discussion
Class #1, dated Thursday, January 28, 2010, from the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Topics of Discussion
- people getting fired from leaving their guns in the car while working
- the extents people will go in America to protect free speech
- universities being forbidden to prescribe, advertise, and ( Read more... )
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.
Reply
But just thinking of the fact that in the USA everyone has the right to bear arms creeps the hell out of me.
Reply
Well, considering that the original Constitution was written after that whole mess with the British and after a war and such, it would be natural that the right to bear arms would be there to keep soldiers from randomly running into your house and stealing all your guns (and other possessions, but you really need the gun to defend yourself, obviously) as they used to do in the days before and during the Revolutionary War. :3
Reply
Leave a comment