"Woman Fired For Carrying Gun On The Job," the WSBTV.com headline tells us.
"Jamie Lunsford said the company violated her rights by firing her after they discovered she had a gun in her car while on business."
So she wasn't actually "carrying," was she? Still, how did her employer discover that she had a gun in her car? Apparently she disclosed it to security guards while visiting a federal Reserve Bank on company business, and they "had no problem with it."
Should have kept the lips zipped, lady, but done is done. She jumped through all the hoops, obtained a permit, kept her firearm secured in her car (per employer policy), and was open and candid with security--so what's the problem?
The company she worked six years for, Iron Mountain, Inc., acknowledges Georgia law provides for employees keeping their firearms in cars parked in company lots, but maintains it "does not...permit an employee to carry a firearm while conducting company business."
Further, we're told there was another employee in the car with Ms. Lunsford, and Iron Mountain has "a zero tolerance policy on any action that could endanger employees or customers."
If I may:
Georgia law also does not prohibit an employee from carrying a firearm while on company business.
Where in the files Iron Mountain compiled when they developed their policy do they have empirical evidence to justify the assertion that an employee having a secured firearm in their personal vehicle endangers anyone, and have they had their risk management department assess that data compared to protective benefits of having the means of self-defense on hand? Particularly for women, who are at a physical disadvantage against most violent and predatory offenders?
Some other policy questions we might ask include whether or not the "company business" restriction is unenforceable due to vagueness, and especially if the policy is uniformly enforced.
For instance, do any of the executives have firearms in their homes, and do they conduct "company business" from there, via telephone calls, internet communications, doing spreadsheets on laptops, etc.? Do they ever have other employees over for "company business"-related work or social events?
Or can an employee take a "company business" call or schedule an appointment on their PDA while legally armed, no matter where they are? Doesn't the fact that Iron Mountain policy acknowledges workers can keep guns on premises in their cars provide de facto evidence they know employees--particularly folks in sales or service--can be conducting "company business" at any time?
Would not a strict application of zero tolerance for firearms on "company business" or in the presence of other employees be a virtual disarmament mandate for all Iron Mountain employees anywhere and at any time, lest they get an unexpected visit or call or text or email from the boss, a customer, a subordinate, a supplier, that immediately puts them in violation of policy?
And then, of course, will Iron Mountain accept responsibility to protect employees they require to be disarmed? What financial liability does Iron Mountain accept if an employee obeys their policy and is hurt or killed? None?
If I were her attorney, I'd be asking all of these questions--right after taking a refresher course to pound into my skull that government does not give rights. He evidently missed that core concept on the first go-round.
As for Iron Mountain's HR bureaucrats, what is with these control freak martinets who think a paycheck gives them authority to dictate the life choices and freedoms their employees may exercise?
"Company business" my...foot. It's none of the company's damn business.
It's past time we as citizens adopted zero tolerance policies of our own, for any who would infringe on our unalienable rights.
------------
If it's Wednesday, it must mean...
...a new episode of Trigger Sports LIVE!
Host James B. Towle and I will be discussing developments in the Reid/Angle race, notably anti-gun Mayor Mike Bloomberg's interest in raising funds for politicians who pass his "litmus test," and my call to NRA--in the absence of an endorsement--to at least release the grades their contributors paid them to establish.
You can join us today at Noon PST by clicking here to access the American Trigger Sports Network website.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends? And get more commentary on the gun rights stories of the day at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
This is Robert- It sounds like someone in HR decided they wanted her gone for any reason and chose this as the easiest way to twist a company policy to meet their goal of firing her. I think a jury will see right through it and nail the company. In California, a state manager can have an employee investigated for "potential" workplace violence without any retribution becauase the law apparently says they cannot be sued for doing it and harming the employee's reputation . Nor do they have to have any proof of wrongdoing before asking for the investigation. Just one person who says someone scares them is all it takes even if that is a lie. All accussers are protected by law. At least this lady has a recourse and she should avail herself of it.
I am an absolutist on both property rights and contract rights, as I believe most of the Founders were. I've worked for companies that had similar policies (in my limited experience, most do), even though I recognize that my personal property absent a personal and effective guarantee of personal safety at all times under the policy (effectively impossible) is no one's business but my own.
However, if called into question, matters like these seem to be a matter of conditional employment, laws notwithstanding. If there is a conflict, it seems to me that the only course of action if compliance is not an option is to leave (the premises, the employ, etc.).
This is not to say that what happened, based on the story here, was the right thing for Iron Mountain to do - but how does this matter differ in principle from the decision of Fuddruckers to announce that they don't want the business of folks who keep and bear arms?
Is not the proper response to bring attention to Iron Mountain's actions here and seek another company to handle any IT/office management jobs that need doing?
You nailed it. Employment is a voluntary association. But so is a business/customer relationship. Iron Mountain is free to set employee policy and employees have the choice to either abide by that policy, quit, or risk being fired. But we, the public at large, also have the choice to do business or not with companies based on how they treat us, and how they treat their employees.
Thanks, David, for bringing this case to our attention. Based on the nature of their business, the chances that I would ever be a customer of Iron Mountain were slim. But now that I'm aware of their policy and treatment of their employees, the chances now go to zero, along with Weyerhauser, Levi Strauss, Fudruckers, and a growing list of others.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Sorry.
I am flat done backing up.
Screw Iron Mountain.
We just cannot stand for this any more.
It is time to start hurting them for hurting us.
Period. Dot. End of line.
Get some lawyers and really hurt them.
Keep in mind that Iron Mountain is a private company and not a government entity. Part of the deal that comes with the right of property ownership (to include your own body) is that other property owners may insist upon terms which are reprehensible or impossible to comply with... as is their right as property owners. Yes, they should also be held accountable for such behavior.
David brought up many fantastic points, most of which should (if logic and legal reasoning reign) give company lawyers nightmares regarding liability for disarmed employees.
Still, there's no "backing up" involved here - it seems to be a simple matter of private property ownership and/or terms of a voluntary association. I feel bad for Jamie Lunsford, even moreso because she appears to be being punished largely because of her openness and honesty. Punishment of misdeeds by Iron Mountain need to happen in the voluntary marketplace (barring the sorts of policy misapplication brought up in the article, of course).
"Keep in mind that Iron Mountain is a private company and not a government entity."
If they have a corporate charter, they are a 'creature of the legislature' and as such have no rights per se, merely the powers granted to them by charter, which rights cannot be greater than those posessed by the legislature.
'Corporate personhood' is a legal fiction, 'fiction' being the operative word.
Requiring an employee to utilize their personal vehicle in the line of work and then firing them for having a secured firearm in it which she cannot be fired for, as per state law, because they are supposedly "carrying" while on "company business" is ridiculous and should be slapped down by the state as a violation of the law.
Companies "can" do about anything they want... BUT if they do certain things like using coercion, theft, or fraud, or to forbid employees from possessing guns, they are doing something very bad. There is never any legitimate justification for it. Lots of equivocation and "what ifs", but it is all just an empty excuse to violate your rights of self ownership. Property rights end where the property ends, and NO ONE'S property extends into your bubble of personal property that lies inside your clothing or inside your car. Period.
Iron Mountain is stupid and deserves to be boycotted.
However - this is a matter of the Freedom to Associate. Either we believe in Liberty, or we do not. It must be applied equally, to all parties. Iron Mountain has every right to have a no firearms policy, a no smoking policy, or any other policy they desire. Every employee has the right to NOT work there. Every consumer has the right to NOT consume there.
Every point that David makes is legit, as regards to their hypocrisy. And on grounds of unequal application of the policy they should be forced to give Ms. Lunsford a big, fat check. But only on these grounds. We can not take from Iron Mountain the right to associate with whom they wish, any more than we can be forced to patronize their business.
Sam
III
Sorry, but I don't believe slavery is OK as long as they keep it on their own property. Nor murder or any other act that violates the basic rights all humans possess by virtue of being alive. That includes the right to defend your life and body with the best tools you possess.
If they do not wish to invite fully-functional humans, with all their rights intact, onto their property they have the absolute right to shut their doors and be hermits. Once you decide to allow other people to enter your property you have certain obligations, and respecting ALL their rights is one of those.
I do think it is better to simply avoid doing business with them than to associate with bad people, though.
Sue, win, own, change the rule.
Let's look at this from our constitutional persective. Where our constitutions (US and State) are silent on any matter (apparently the GA constitution is silent on this matter) as in this case, the company has a constitutional right to restrict conduct and activity while on company property, or while conducting company business away from the company property. If the employee finds it against their expectations they have one of two rights, quit their job, or comply with the company dictates while at work on or off the property. Private property rights cannot be infringed; and in this case it is private property rights, coupled with company rights to conduct business; which is basically the rights of the employer to run their business as they deem appropriate. A conservative is this instance would simply look for another job; a liberal would want to change company policy to suit their desires. Are to conservative or liberal?
You cant sign a contract that enslaves you .....its an illegal contract.
Because they employ you doesn't mean that their decisions, which may cost you your life, can stand in the way of your protection of yourself. If you were to use that logic, it would mean that you could be ordered to do anything, go anywhere, that anyone would agree was dangerous, and could be fired if you didn't. You might argue that they have that right but I would argue that no one have that right except the person who is so endangered, since it is after all, their butt.
Kinda like having a sheriff decide whether or not you "need" a gun for protection. That never works out well because their decision making is arbitrary and not concerned with personal risk assessment other than the exposure of the company to liability, which is really what this is all about anyway. Lawyers....
Corporations are not individuals except as legal fiction - therefore they do not have real individual property rights. Also a place of business private or corporate must respect the basic rights of it's employees - you can't shoot an employee for poor performance and you can't have them sign a contract in which they give up inalienable rights. Yes there is a right to property - but it does not include the right to violate the rights of others.
They have the right to fire her and she does not have a right to be employed by them - but by the same token they do not have the right to implement or enforce policies that violate basic individual rights as terms of employment.
Do you believe in individual god given inalienable rights or do you believe in rights as established and limited by contract and property rights.
In Georgia the company has the right to fire an employee for any reason.
The employee had the right to petition the US Attorney to charge all of the executives and the insurance companies who are guilty of conspiring against the constitutional rights of the employee.
18 USC 241, Conspiracy against rights: "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
David, libertarians will say a business owner has property rights and can determine the standards of employment.
If that were the case then an employer should be able to hire anyone they want with NO quotas for race, but we all know large employers don’t have that option.
The bottom line is this does the law of man have dominion over Gods law?
If I as an employee wants to carry its no ones business but my own.
I have finally had the chance to see the NEW JPFO film NO guns for Jews. The Rabbi talked about how we are obligated to defend innocents and how Gods law trumps mans law.
He also talked about his NJ FOID card and how it was wrong.
If the NRA supports the 68 GCA and the various FOID card and other gun laws around the country then isn’t the NRA against Gods law?
I would say if she was in her own car that is her property and not applicable to company policy. If she was in a company car then I think they have the right to dictate what is on/in private property. That being said I would say if she violated no law and the security personal were fine this is motivated by some other factor. Ga law states that open carry in a vehicle in plain view or in a glove box is legal without a permit. Private property has the right to dictate the carry of firearms I would say this extends to vehicles however if this was her own car I would be quite outraged.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!