Would it be legal to sign away your rights to a corporation?

[utbagpiper]

Simple questions.

Yes they are. What is your answer?

You are the one who made a firm statement that "We have the right to sign away our rights."

The insult.

You have not cited where I support indentured servitude, unsafe mines, and the killing of a healthy citizen for his organs.

What insult? You wrote "We have the right to sign away our rights."

What more citation do you need. Your words, "We have the right to sign away our rights."

I just pointed out what that meant, as written, without exception.

I took that at face value and asked questions to see whether you really meant it, or whether you had been a bit sloppy in such an unequivocal declaration. In taking your statement at face value, I observed that would be an interesting world you support. If you don't support that kind of a world, clarify your position.

Don't be insulted, just clarify your position.

For all the convolutions you've gone through to try to claim I've insulted you, you could have clarified it twice.

And next time you consider putting words in someone else's mouth to cast their views in the most negative light possible (ie, anti-discrimination laws) consider how you like it when it is done, very gently, to you.

Charles

 

[nonameisgood]

Can y'all please take it outside?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

Can y'all please take it outside?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100%.

 

[OC for ME]

Yes they are. ...

...?

Not gunna answer the simple questions...OK.

 

[MAC702]

Back to the OQ:

You never really sign away your RIGHT to do anything. What you are really signing is an acknowledgement that if you CHOOSE to exercise that right during a particular time and place, the consequences will include things such as losing your job.

Your employer gets to set standards of how you speak to others while representing him, right?

 

[utbagpiper]

Back to the OQ:

You never really sign away your RIGHT to do anything. What you are really signing is an acknowledgement that if you CHOOSE to exercise that right during a particular time and place, the consequences will include things such as losing your job.

Your employer gets to set standards of how you speak to others while representing him, right?

But this is just word smithing.

And what it boils down to is what limitations do we believe appropriate to place on an employer's decisions to terminate employment.

The anarchists and pure libertarians will argue that an employer can set whatever conditions he likes and potential employees can either accept those conditions or go work elsewhere.

The rest of us accept that certain conditions are appropriate and the question is simple where to draw the line, and whether that line is constant across all jobs or whether some jobs are entitled to different limits than others.

Examples abound.

An employer is legally banned from firing an hourly employee for not working overtime without overtime pay.

That say employer can fire an exempt employee for refusing to work more than 40 hours without extra pay.

Should an employer be legally permitted to fire an employee who exercises his right to vote Democrat?

Should an employer be legally permitted to fire an employee who chooses to enter into a same-sex "marriage"? Do religious and secular employers get different rules on this one?

Should an employer be legally permitted to fire an employee who keeps a gun in his personal car, parked in the employee parking lot?

And so on and so forth, right on up to the extreme examples that have offended another member.

Charles

 

[The Donkey]

The rest of us accept that certain conditions are appropriate and the question is simple where to draw the line, and whether that line is constant across all jobs or whether some jobs are entitled to different limits than others.

Now that raises some interesting practical questions, Bagpiper.

Among the jobs entitled to different limits are jobs working for the government. The Supreme Court has held that most government employees have Constitutionally protected liberty and property interests in their jobs. They therefore enjoy certain rights which do not necessarily attach to the rest of us. Among these rights is the First Amendment freedom to speak publicly on their own time on matters of public concern. If they are fired for speaking out like this they have a Constitutional cause of action.

From this, I think a good argument can be made that these public employees also cannot be dismissed for exercising Second Amendment rights within certain bounds on their own time. I do not know whether anybody has made this argument in a major case thus far, or how they fared. Anyone know?

 

[solus]

mate, if YOU got a DW/UI or several, or got into a messy DV situation, or any of the myriad of issues which could affect your periodic review ~ what would be your current job status or even future job prospects?

ipse

 

[Ezek]

Was trying to expain liberty so someone who does not want to seem to understand this concept.

For the purposes of this discussion let's go with all drug use, on your time, was legal. So the arguement is that a corporation who is only paying you for the time that you're working on its behalf, can dictate what you do on your free time, provided that what you do is legal where and when you do it. In this case it was about using marijuana. However if a business/corporation can dictate even one aspect of your legal free time, what else can be dictated?

I see this as a gate way into saying, if you own guns, go shooting, engage in carnal activities, eat butter, drive a car that has an I.C.E., or any number of otherwise legal activities, that you can be fired/denied a job. Mind you, you're only being compensated for the time spent "on the clock" but the rest of your time is under their control as well?

What are your thoughts? Could/Should all/any companies create or beable to create contracts of this nature that would be legally binding? I could understand a contract of this nature if you're salary, hence, always "on the clock" but, I am generally refering to time card punching jobs/work.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I've had a similar thing posed in the form of a non compete agreement, my personal opinion... I crossed out a lot of the lines and then signed it, they of course demanded I sign it in it's original form, in which case they placed me under financial stress with the threat of termination, therefore it was signed under duress.


a little background.. I am a mechanic, I buy my tools with fiat currency made from fair trade of physical labor for monetary gain. therefore what I do on MY property WITH MY property is MY business, NOT the companies. so they can F)*(&* OFF IMO.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I've had a similar thing posed in the form of a non compete agreement, my personal opinion... I crossed out a lot of the lines and then signed it, they of course demanded I sign it in it's original form, in which case they placed me under financial stress with the threat of termination, therefore it was signed under duress.


a little background.. I am a mechanic, I buy my tools with fiat currency made from fair trade of physical labor for monetary gain. therefore what I do on MY property WITH MY property is MY business, NOT the companies. so they can F)*(&* OFF IMO.

I have modified a contract or two. They were so use to people not changing anything that they did not catch any changes that I had made. The major thing was their prohibition on carrying a pistol even while parked in the public parking lot. I was CC at that time and that company has idiots running their office.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

...

From this, I think a good argument can be made that these public employees also cannot be dismissed for exercising Second Amendment rights within certain bounds on their own time. I do not know whether anybody has made this argument in a major case thus far, or how they fared. Anyone know?

I do not know of any court cases.

In Utah, most of our State (and local) government employees are protected in their RKBA while on the job. There are few rare exceptions like jailers, prison guards, those who work inside the secure area of the State mental hospital, court clerks, etc, where the private possession of firearms would pose an usual security risk. But most of our State employees including public school teachers, university professors, the guy/gal working at the DMV, etc, can carry on the job.

In ten years, I think the sum total of problems is a single dead toilet from an ND in a teacher bathroom.

Charles

 

[Grapeshot]

I have modified a contract or two. They were so use to people not changing anything that they did not catch any changes that I had made. The major thing was their prohibition on carrying a pistol even while parked in the public parking lot. I was CC at that time and that company has idiots running their office.

IMO - your changes were meaningless unless individually accepted, counter endorsed, initialled.

 

[Ezek]

IMO - your changes were meaningless unless individually accepted, counter endorsed, initialled.

same could be said of their contract on their side to be honest, if they have not endorsed it and signed/initialed it, then it is not active for him either.

 

[Freedom1Man]

IMO - your changes were meaningless unless individually accepted, counter endorsed, initialled.

They accepted it and put it into my file, they never sign the contracts.

So, it is just as valid as my modified one.

Kinda like that guy who got the goods on a bank one day. He wrote his own credit card contract, the bank sent him a credit card and the contract was upheld in court. The company put me to work with the modified contract in my file.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

If rights are inalienable.

Then how can the belief of others determine what conditions one sets (business owner) on using his property or what contract he sets the terms for and others voluntarily accept?

 

[Freedom1Man]

If rights are inalienable.

Then how can the belief of others determine what conditions one sets (business owner) on using his property or what contract he sets the terms for and others voluntarily accept?

I was not speaking about businesses, but rather corporations.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I was not speaking about businesses, but rather corporations.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I wasn't specifically singling your post out.

Yet it still applies, corporations are private group of individuals who own property.

The state shouldn't be involved in licensing them but they would exist in one form or another without the state.

 

[color of law]

Posted by Grapeshot
IMO - your changes were meaningless unless individually accepted, counter endorsed, initialled.

They accepted it and put it into my file, they never sign the contracts.

So, it is just as valid as my modified one.

Kinda like that guy who got the goods on a bank one day. He wrote his own credit card contract, the bank sent him a credit card and the contract was upheld in court. The company put me to work with the modified contract in my file.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi tractatur de ejus commodo - He who is silent is considered as assenting, when his interest is at stake.

 

[utbagpiper]

If rights are inalienable.

Then how can the belief of others determine what conditions one sets (business owner) on using his property or what contract he sets the terms for and others voluntarily accept?

There are a couple of possible answers:

1-Exactly which rights are unalienable?

Do you claim an unalienable right to engage in business practices that discriminate on the basis of protected categories?

2-We are clearly not living in a society that perfectly respects our rights as evidenced by the myriad infringements on our RKBA, the limited protections for the unborn, other areas or law.

3-If a right is unalienable, then how can it be alienated even through contract? See my earlier posts that offended another member by pointing out the natural consequence of claiming that rights like life and liberty can be contracted away.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Yet it still applies, corporations are private group of individuals who own property.

The state shouldn't be involved in licensing them but they would exist in one form or another without the state.

Corporations as limited liability entities can only exist within a legal structure that recognizes the concept of limited liability. Simple partnerships where owners are jointly liable can and do exist. But the ability to raise money, to sell fractions of ownership without the buyers also having to accept liability for the day-to-day conduct of the business they are not actively operating is an invention of the state. And generally accepted as a good and necessary thing for modern commerce.

Limited liability entities or other artificial persons are actually the case where one can most easily make the case for anti-discrimination laws, limits on employment contracts & conditions, and other regulations that might otherwise be seen as an infringement on personal rights. Simply put, if one wishes to gain the legal and financial protections offered by the artificial entity that exists only because of state recognition, one has to accept the conditions of that including financial and other filings, anti-discrimination, and so on.

This leaves us with no firm principle beyond "because society functions far better" to justify applying some of the same laws to simple proprietorships and partnerships.

But for better or worse, that ship has sailed.

Charles