It's a start

John Hardin · Mar 17, 2011

My proposal:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/wa_gun_laws_car.txt

It's been discussed here in the past.

onlurker · Mar 17, 2011

amlevin said:
If the State is a "right to work state" they can't force you to belong to any union. Washington is not a Right to Work State. Why do you think Boeing is moving their new production to their new factory in South Carolina?

Second production line, the 787 line in Everett isn't going anywhere I can assure you of this.

Trigger Dr · Mar 17, 2011

Before I retired, there were times that we needed to search a private locker in a business. A search warrant was required. Even though the locker was owned by the company, it was assigned to the employee, and as such the employee had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. The same held true to the desk an employee used as his or her work station. The employer could only legally access these areas with the permission of the employee or as a condition of employment. I believe this would extend to a privately owned vehicle on the property, with more protection than afforded the locker or desk.
I have been retired for 14 years now, and things may have changed, but I believe not.
Lammo or Drew, please speak up.

Metalhead47 · Mar 17, 2011

John Hardin said:
Do you as an employer have the right to say I cannot have pornography in my car? Do you as an employer have the right to say I cannot have empty potato chip bags littering the floor of my car? Do you as an employer have the right to say I can't have any of those damned rap CDs in my car?

You have the right to tell me whether or not I can park my car on your property. You don't have the right to control what I can or can not place on or in my own property.

If you have a problem with what I might or might not have in my car then don't let me park on your property, but if you do that you'd better damned well accept liability for what happens to me between where you're making me park and the workplace.

Dang dude, porno rap & tater chips. You've been having entirely too much fun in your car!

Seriously tho, what's the status of your bill? Did anyone pick it up to move thru the process?

and to an earlier poster: IIRC, the law passed last year in Oklahoma, and this fine fellow's proposal, also include language that absolve the employer from any liability if the employee misuses said stored firearm.

amlevin · Mar 17, 2011

onlurker said:
Second production line, the 787 line in Everett isn't going anywhere I can assure you of this.

Like my post said, NEW PRODUCTION. Do you really think Boeing will not look elsewhere for a production line for any new airplane they come up with? Like the replacement for the 737?

amlevin · Mar 17, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
Dang dude, porno rap & tater chips. You've been having entirely too much fun in your car!

Hope you have a good "Air Freshener".

onlurker · Mar 17, 2011

amlevin said:
Like my post said, NEW PRODUCTION. Do you really think Boeing will not look elsewhere for a production line for any new airplane they come up with? Like the replacement for the 737?

They've only opened up one more production line, mostly because the airplane sold so well. I do not believe I'm allowed to divulge the information regarding such airplanes as the 737 and the 777 without committing impropriety, but I can assure you that production for their bread and butter lines are going to have a hard time leaving this state. Just look at the 747-8, basically a new airplane but still in Everett.

amlevin · Mar 17, 2011

onlurker said:
They've only opened up one more production line, mostly because the airplane sold so well. I do not believe I'm allowed to divulge the information regarding such airplanes as the 737 and the 777 without committing impropriety, but I can assure you that production for their bread and butter lines are going to have a hard time leaving this state. Just look at the 747-8, basically a new airplane but still in Everett.

Unless one more strike becomes the straw that broke the camel's back.

Boeing is no longer a "Seattle" Company. They have no loyalty to the region any more. They'll go where they can produce the plane for the least cost. Especially when they build one that they have no tooling investment in an existing factory.

Drink the company Kool-Aid if you wish.

BTW, I too have my "secret sources". People that work in areas that are involved in just such planning.

onlurker · Mar 17, 2011

amlevin said:
Unless one more strike becomes the straw that broke the camel's back.

Boeing is no longer a "Seattle" Company. They have no loyalty to the region any more. They'll go where they can produce the plane for the least cost. Especially when they build one that they have no tooling investment in an existing factory.

Oh I'm not doubting that Boeing will leave WA, I just don't think it's going to happen in the time span people think. We'll see it coming with plenty of warning if/when they announce a complete replacement to their two biggest airplanes being produced elsewhere and/or if they ramp up production in Charleston for the 787.

I'll continue sipping the company kool-aid for now, I've got a pretty secure job from where I'm standing.

amlevin · Mar 17, 2011

onlurker said:
Oh I'm not doubting that Boeing will leave WA, I just don't think it's going to happen in the time span people think. We'll see it coming with plenty of warning if/when they announce a complete replacement to their two biggest airplanes being produced elsewhere and/or if they ramp up production in Charleston for the 787.

I'll continue sipping the company kool-aid for now, I've got a pretty secure job from where I'm standing.

On thing to watch for is when Boeing finally has their "line" functioning in SC, the number of planes they schedule for production there versus here. Once the backlog starts to diminish for '87's, they will no doubt utilize the capacity in SC and layoffs in Everett will be imminent. Even if they pay the same wage, those in SC will more likely than not be IAM.

BTW, and back to the topic, I believe Boeing is one of those companies that calls for vehicle searches as a condition of parking on their property. At least it used to be the case when I worked there almost 50 years ago. They were paranoid that someone might steal a nut, bolt, or tube of glue.

jbone · Mar 17, 2011

Well Hell John Hardin, I'm not sure how to answer, since I'm not sure if your response is anger based toward me yet?
I’ll need some secret squirrel crypto types to decipher all the

John Hardin said:
you...you...you...You...your...You...you...your...you...you'd...you're...

All I can say at this point is I don't own a business, or any parking lots. :lol:

onlurker · Mar 17, 2011

amlevin said:
BTW, and back to the topic, I believe Boeing is one of those companies that calls for vehicle searches as a condition of parking on their property. At least it used to be the case when I worked there almost 50 years ago. They were paranoid that someone might steal a nut, bolt, or tube of glue.

I haven't been able to find any such policy even for inside the gate parking, although I wouldn't put it past them to have "random searches" for those that cross the gate with their cars. There is no way they would be able to enforce such a policy in the general parking area outside the gates, there are just too many cars and too much asphalt to cover (still defined as company property however).

joeroket · Mar 17, 2011

onlurker said:
I haven't been able to find any such policy even for inside the gate parking, although I wouldn't put it past them to have "random searches" for those that cross the gate with their cars. There is no way they would be able to enforce such a policy in the general parking area outside the gates, there are just too many cars and too much asphalt to cover (still defined as company property however).

Thats because they removed that policy. They removed before I hired on in 97. They reserve the right to search you as you but not your vehicle. I have witnessed them search lunchboxes and coolers. Another reason I like third shift. No manned gates coming to or going from.

amlevin · Mar 17, 2011

joeroket said:
Thats because they removed that policy. They removed before I hired on in 97. They reserve the right to search you as you but not your vehicle. I have witnessed them search lunchboxes and coolers. Another reason I like third shift. No manned gates coming to or going from.

I always laughed when I worked there in the 60's. We all had to open our lunch boxes when we left the plant and show them to the guard. In the time I worked there I know of several vehicles that were well equipped with various aircraft hydraulic parts and fittings, stainless steel parts that were 'fabed in the machine shops, and then there were the model airplane/model boat guys that did a lot of their "research" using BAC facilities.

Those huge signs sure worked, didn't they.

joeroket · Mar 17, 2011

amlevin said:
I always laughed when I worked there in the 60's. We all had to open our lunch boxes when we left the plant and show them to the guard. In the time I worked there I know of several vehicles that were well equipped with various aircraft hydraulic parts and fittings, stainless steel parts that were 'fabed in the machine shops, and then there were the model airplane/model boat guys that did a lot of their "research" using BAC facilities.

Those huge signs sure worked, didn't they.

hahaha......That practice was still in place when I was there. There was a guy that walked out with a 50' air hose, he passed out about ten feet past the guard shack because of the heat difference from the building to the outside. You see this genius wrapped the hose around his torso and then basically suffocated himself when he started heating up outside. He was given CPR and then promptly terminated.

gogodawgs · Mar 17, 2011

Trigger Dr said:
Before I retired, there were times that we needed to search a private locker in a business. A search warrant was required. Even though the locker was owned by the company, it was assigned to the employee, and as such the employee had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. The same held true to the desk an employee used as his or her work station. The employer could only legally access these areas with the permission of the employee or as a condition of employment. I believe this would extend to a privately owned vehicle on the property, with more protection than afforded the locker or desk.
I have been retired for 14 years now, and things may have changed, but I believe not.
Lammo or Drew, please speak up.

With my current company they reserve the right to search my vehicle, however, they specifically state they can only do so with the police present and a warrant.

With my past company and current, lockers in the break room are supplied to the employee with a lock provided by the company and the combination provided by the company. If the employee chooses to use a locker, they must use a provided lock and as a condition of employment must allow for my to search at any time. I once had an employee come to me stating another employee had some marijuana in their locker. The employee was off at that time. I called HR, called in an assistant manager and opened and searched the locker. Illegal substance found, and employee terminated. Police not called.

END_THE_FED · Mar 18, 2011

gogodawgs said:
With my current company they reserve the right to search my vehicle, however, they specifically state they can only do so with the police present and a warrant.

With my past company and current, lockers in the break room are supplied to the employee with a lock provided by the company and the combination provided by the company. If the employee chooses to use a locker, they must use a provided lock and as a condition of employment must allow for my to search at any time. I once had an employee come to me stating another employee had some marijuana in their locker. The employee was off at that time. I called HR, called in an assistant manager and opened and searched the locker. Illegal substance found, and employee terminated. Police not called.

Just out of curiosity, were there other problems with the worker? Was he a bad worker or did he do a good job? Absent the contraband do you feel he may have been fired anyway for other issues?

Would you still have fired him if he had a "Doctor Authorization" in compliance with state law?

These questions are in no way meant to criticize your decision. I am just curious.

gogodawgs · Mar 18, 2011

END_THE_FED said:
Just out of curiosity, were there other problems with the worker? Was he a bad worker or did he do a good job? Absent the contraband do you feel he may have been fired anyway for other issues?

Would you still have fired him if he had a "Doctor Authorization" in compliance with state law?

These questions are in no way meant to criticize your decision. I am just curious.

She was a manager as well and was a good worker. At this time I was a FFL holder for a retail sporting good store and it was a clear violation of policy and put the company at risk.

Trigger Dr · Mar 18, 2011

gogodawgs said:
With my current company they reserve the right to search my vehicle, however, they specifically state they can only do so with the police present and a warrant.

With my past company and current, lockers in the break room are supplied to the employee with a lock provided by the company and the combination provided by the company. If the employee chooses to use a locker, they must use a provided lock and as a condition of employment must allow for my to search at any time. I once had an employee come to me stating another employee had some marijuana in their locker. The employee was off at that time. I called HR, called in an assistant manager and opened and searched the locker. Illegal substance found, and employee terminated. Police not called.

Condition of employment.

John Hardin · Mar 18, 2011

jbone said:
Well Hell John Hardin, I'm not sure how to answer, since I'm not sure if your response is anger based toward me yet?
I’ll need some secret squirrel crypto types to decipher all the

All I can say at this point is I don't own a business, or any parking lots. :lol:

The "you" was generic, nothing personal...

It's a start

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member