• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB2137 any info?

divedog

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
37
Location
Secret Bunker
I work for a company that has a no weapons on the premises clause in the employee Manuel. It does not specifically talk about private vehicles but I assume it is intended to be used as they see fit. The parking lot is owned by the company and is open to the public. Does anyone have any info on HB2137 in WA state? It looks like it is still alive, is there any traction for it? What are it's chances?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2137&year=2011
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Bill looks good, but since Washington is a "Right to Work" state, they can fire you for wearing a blue shirt or no socks, so unless they are foolish enough to tell you why they are letting you go, it won't help much. The other thing is that they have NO ability to search your car, so follow the car storage requirements in 9.41.050 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 and don't talk about it at work. If they do have the written ability to search your vehicle, either park off-site or make your choice.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Bill looks good, but since Washington is a "Right to Work" state, they can fire you for wearing a blue shirt or no socks, so unless they are foolish enough to tell you why they are letting you go, it won't help much. The other thing is that they have NO ability to search your car, so follow the car storage requirements in 9.41.050 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 and don't talk about it at work. If they do have the written ability to search your vehicle, either park off-site or make your choice.

that's easy to get around
file for unemployment benefits, if fired without cause you're eligible for benefits. If fired "for cause" employers may attempt to deny benefits. so if terminated and you file for benefits and your former employers shows up saying you were fired for violating policy then the "at-will" goes out the window.
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
...and you are still out of a job and unless you have some other supplement, unemployment is not going to equal your working wage. Most folks cannot take a 50% pay cut and make ends meet. Plus if you actually need a reference from your employer for the next job, good luck with that.

ETA: yep At will is what I meant, I have mostly dealt with jobs that fall under Federal Guidelines, which require the employer to provide union "coverage" even if you don't join or pay dues. Of course you get what you pay for "free" doesn't usually work out to be much unless the employer is egregiously in the wrong.
 
Last edited:

GreatWhiteLlama

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
287
Location
Bothell, Washington, USA
I work for a company that has a no weapons on the premises clause in the employee Manuel. It does not specifically talk about private vehicles but I assume it is intended to be used as they see fit. The parking lot is owned by the company and is open to the public. Does anyone have any info on HB2137 in WA state? It looks like it is still alive, is there any traction for it? What are it's chances?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2137&year=2011

Seems to me that this clause only applies to the employee named Manuel. Since your name is divedog, you should be okay. :D
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
...and you are still out of a job and unless you have some other supplement, unemployment is not going to equal your working wage. Most folks cannot take a 50% pay cut and make ends meet. Plus if you actually need a reference from your employer for the next job, good luck with that.

ETA: yep At will is what I meant, I have mostly dealt with jobs that fall under Federal Guidelines, which require the employer to provide union "coverage" even if you don't join or pay dues. Of course you get what you pay for "free" doesn't usually work out to be much unless the employer is egregiously in the wrong.

True, i was thinking of a situation in which one was already terminated.
if employed just lock the guns in the car like Vitaeus said, chances are as long as you don't run your yap about violating rules you will never have a problem. the people who get in trouble for those kinds of things are usually the people who don't know what not to talk about or what not to do.

like the guy who ventilated the roof of the puyallup fair at the WAC show, hundreds of people probably break the rule and bring the CCW through security without reporting it. as long as you don't yak off and attempt to show off you'll never get in trouble for it either...
 

divedog

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
37
Location
Secret Bunker
Since the wording is no weapons on the premises and it doesn't specifically address private vehicles could one argue that it's not on the premises until it leaves a private vehicle?
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I don't think that dog will hunt.

I don't know rapgood...your private vehicle, is your property. That you use their parking lot does not give them any rights to it.

Employee manual, verse employment contract? Unilateral "employee manuals" are not contractual agreements.

IMHO: if you do not bring the weapon into the building, you are probably just fine...best would be you never take it out of your personal vehicle.

Ya?
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" method. Worked for me for years. Even had a 9mm that lived in my briefcase that, whenever I was in my office, sat open on a worktable behind my desk. Fit real nice in one of the lid's file compartments. A spare magazine fit real nice in an enclosed calculator pocket.

Unless one has a bad case of "oral dysentery" and lets the world know what's he's got in his vehicle, why would anyone care? About the only reason I can think of that would justify the Employer's search of a vehicle in their parking lot would be the suspicion of theft, or someone running their mouth about the gun(s) in the car/truck.

For those that have to pass through security checkpoints in order to park, like "inside" parking at Boeing, by entering there is pretty much an implied right to search. Part of the terms for more convenient parking.
 

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
I prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" method. Worked for me for years. Even had a 9mm that lived in my briefcase that, whenever I was in my office, sat open on a worktable behind my desk. Fit real nice in one of the lid's file compartments. A spare magazine fit real nice in an enclosed calculator pocket.

Unless one has a bad case of "oral dysentery" and lets the world know what's he's got in his vehicle, why would anyone care? About the only reason I can think of that would justify the Employer's search of a vehicle in their parking lot would be the suspicion of theft, or someone running their mouth about the gun(s) in the car/truck.

For those that have to pass through security checkpoints in order to park, like "inside" parking at Boeing, by entering there is pretty much an implied right to search. Part of the terms for more convenient parking.
This describes my situation right now with my employer. They don't allow guns and have a checkpoint. I have never seen anyone have their car searched, but can happen. Their policies allow for such searches. There is not much I can do except take a long walk.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
I don't know rapgood...your private vehicle, is your property. That you use their parking lot does not give them any rights to it.

Employee manual, verse employment contract? Unilateral "employee manuals" are not contractual agreements.

IMHO: if you do not bring the weapon into the building, you are probably just fine...best would be you never take it out of your personal vehicle.

Ya?

I am not quite in agreement with this. If it is in the "employee manual", and you accept employment, I would think that you would be agreeing to and accepting the provisions of the manual by implied conscent.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Almost all people fired (sans contract employees) are fired under an "at-will" theory (I think a few states are different, 1 or 2 and I don't think your state is included in this unique club).

Now, exceptions to the at-will are those terminations that are specifically noted by statue (rare) and those noted in case law. Most are via case law basis of "public policy" exception to the at-will theory.

You can certainly file a wrongful/retaliatory discharge case even if a case does not exist but courts are loath to add additional causes of action but if you can convince a judge that such a termination (gun in car) is against a public policy that is important enough to cross the at-will threshold to the "public policy" circle, you are free to argue. Luckily, it would be decided early via a motion to dismiss or similar motion.

My guess of winning such a motion (believing that no case has carved out this exception already): reeemote. But one can always file in hopes of a settlement too.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Almost all people fired (sans contract employees) are fired under an "at-will" theory (I think a few states are different, 1 or 2 and I don't think your state is included in this unique club).

Now, exceptions to the at-will are those terminations that are specifically noted by statue (rare) and those noted in case law. Most are via case law basis of "public policy" exception to the at-will theory.

You can certainly file a wrongful/retaliatory discharge case even if a case does not exist but courts are loath to add additional causes of action but if you can convince a judge that such a termination (gun in car) is against a public policy that is important enough to cross the at-will threshold to the "public policy" circle, you are free to argue. Luckily, it would be decided early via a motion to dismiss or similar motion.

My guess of winning such a motion (believing that no case has carved out this exception already): reeemote. But one can always file in hopes of a settlement too.

In short, you can make any argument you can afford.
 
Top