Vaccine coercion/bribery

[jamil]

Employers can't stop you from owning a gun. They can stop you from possessing one in their workplace. Same as I can say you are not allowed in my home with a gun if I wanted to.
Rights exist but sooner or later peoples personal rights overlap

In an at-will state, if the HR department called you in and told you that they found out you owned guns and said their policy is not to employ people who own guns, would that law suit work in your favor? I don't know, because IANAL. But I'd like to know.

 

[Jaybird1980]

You are correct they cannot stop you from owning a gun. But under current laws and being in an “at will” state they can make not owning firearms a condition of your employment. They find out you have guns and then they fire you. It’s “at will” after all and you had the freedom to go elsewhere.

now I’m not certain if owning guns is a legally protected status in the eyes of employment law but if it is you can apply the same logic to a hundred other things.

why else was smoking made protected in like 28 states?

I believe In Indiana a law has been passed to not allow employers to base employment on wether you own a firearm or not.
I am not a lawyer, but you could probably look it up. I believe it was somewhere around 2010

 

[jamil]

Simplest way in the world we actually live in would be to add political orientation to the long list of other traits employers can't discriminate against

The better way would be to limit 'at will' to some directly employment-related concern that must always be articulated during termination, and place concerns not so related off limits for termination. Not sure I would agree that, for example, Hooters should be able to fire ugly waitresses. The time to address such concerns would be prior to hiring, not be allowed to replace an existing otherwise adequate employee with a prettier one. Bosses have been able to do that with subordinates for far too long already, IMO

I like the second option better. In the case of Hooters (only because I want to talk about Hooters) I would think that if it's the policy not to hire ugly women, they'd have something in the employment contract that requires certain appearance standards.

ETA: I think I would also say I'd like the courts to rule that contracts that have "for any reason" in the language should not necessarily be enforceable, because the person signing it can't possibly imagine all the ways a company could **** them. I think contracts should be specific when it comes to what one party may do to the other.

 

[wtburnette]

To me the Diversity training BS is almost as bad. We have mandatory D&I training that we have to take or we lose our jobs. I can't say anything about it or opt out, as I'll get fired and every other employer I can think of, which I would have a good chance of being employed by with a reasonable salary, has the same mandatory training.

 

[Jaybird1980]

In an at-will state, if the HR department called you in and told you that they found out you owned guns and said their policy is not to employ people who own guns, would that law suit work in your favor? I don't know, because IANAL. But I'd like to know.

I believe it could be different state to state.
See post 182

 

[BugI02]

In an at-will state, if the HR department called you in and told you that they found out you owned guns and said their policy is not to employ people who own guns, would that law suit work in your favor? I don't know, because IANAL. But I'd like to know.

Time to found a religion that, like Sikhism, requires you to be armed at all times

Voila! Protection from discrimination. We can even have sects like Glockumentarians and 1911th Day Adventists

 

[Jaybird1980]

I think this is it, but IANAL

Section 34-28-8-6 - Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information to employer or potential employer, Ind. Code § 34-28-8-6 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 34-28-8-6 - Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information to employer or potential employer, Ind. Code § 34-28-8-6, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[rooster]

the fact that a law was made to protect gun owners for being fired simply for owning a gun is all the proof anyone should need that employers hold entirely too much power in the “at will” employment scheme.

Don’t get the vaccine, fine get a new job. Sounds like coercion to me.

 

[jamil]

I believe In Indiana a law has been passed to not allow employers to base employment on wether you own a firearm or not.
I am not a lawyer, but you could probably look it up. I believe it was somewhere around 2010

So should employers be able to enforce de facto laws that limit what are constitutional rights, where governments can't? Okay, so one or a few states recognize that companies' power to regulate that one behavior, that has nothing to do with the job, is wrong to do. I think I like Bug's idea that either add political persuasion to the list of protected groups, or, better, set boundaries to what companies can fire people for.

I don't think an employer has a right to determine what your political behavior should be, obviously. But there are boundaries around that too, so that the company's rights aren't overridden where they have a clear interest. Firing someone because they have a political opinion you don't like isn't a clear interest.

 

[Ingomike]

I believe you're wrong, and the Supreme Court has already said so.

He didn't say SCOTUS said. He said his opinion..

Employers can't stop you from owning a gun. They can stop you from possessing one in their workplace. Same as I can say you are not allowed in my home with a gun if I wanted to.
Rights exist but sooner or later peoples personal rights overlap

They sure can stop you from owning a gun if you want continued employment...

 

[jamil]

I think this is it, but IANAL

Section 34-28-8-6 - Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information to employer or potential employer, Ind. Code § 34-28-8-6 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 34-28-8-6 - Disclosure of firearm or ammunition information to employer or potential employer, Ind. Code § 34-28-8-6, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

I don't think a company in California should be able to fire an employee because they own a firearm. I'd BET they don't have that law.

 

[Jaybird1980]

the fact that a law was made to protect gun owners for being fired simply for owning a gun is all the proof anyone should need that employers hold entirely too much power in the “at will” employment scheme.

Don’t get the vaccine, fine get a new job. Sounds like coercion to me.

I agree, but that doesn't really change anything

 

[rooster]

He didn't say SCOTUS said. He said his opinion..

Correct. I need to read that actual case but I doubt the Supreme Court meant for it to be as far reaching and limitless as it has become.

did they imagine a corporate surveillance state then? I doubt it

 

[Jaybird1980]

I don't think a company in California should be able to fire an employee because they own a firearm. I'd BET they don't have that law.

I agree with this also, but then again it's California so who knows

 

[Jaybird1980]

He didn't say SCOTUS said. He said his opinion..

They sure can stop you from owning a gun if you want continued employment...

1. You're right, he said should. But it still stands that they can suppress certain rights.

2. I don't believe you're correct in Indiana at least, but it would have to take a lawyer to get it back if you're fired for owning a gun.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Correct. I need to read that actual case but I doubt the Supreme Court meant for it to be as far reaching and limitless as it has become.

did they imagine a corporate surveillance state then? I doubt it

How about your Freedom of Speech, can they limit that at work. I believe there are plenty of sexual harassment cases saying they can.

Once again I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that is how it is.

 

[jamil]

How about your Freedom of Speech, can they limit that at work. I believe there are plenty of sexual harassment cases saying they can.

But c'mon. Sexual harassment is a type of assault that is not protected by free speech.

But, is there any speech you think that employers can't limit at work? Should they be able to force you to use only politically correct language?

 

[wtburnette]

But c'mon. Sexual harassment is a type of assault that is not protected by free speech.

But, is there any speech you think that employers can't limit at work? Should they be able to force you to use only politically correct language?

Aren't we getting there with the preferred pronouns nonsense?

 

[Jaybird1980]

But c'mon. Sexual harassment is a type of assault that is not protected by free speech.

But, is there any speech you think that employers can't limit at work? Should they be able to force you to use only politically correct language?

It wouldn't be against the law until their is a law that says so though. So prior to mid 60's you could do it.

I imagine it would take a law that says employers can't mandate the vaccine. If that exist already I don't know

 

[rooster]

Aren't we getting there with the preferred pronouns nonsense?

Been there for a while

A teacher says he was fired for refusing to use male pronouns for a transgender student | CNN

A Virginia teacher has filed a lawsuit saying he was wrongfully fired for refusing to use male pronouns for a transgender student.

www.google.com