🚀 go-pugleaf

NightSerf wrote:
> 
> In va.general SSlatin <steven.slatin@pressroom.com> wrote:
> 
> > Joshua Turner <shua@umich.edu> wrote in article
> > <355B38C5.3AD1@umich.edu>...
> 
> > <much inane chest-beating deleted>
> 
> > > > > > It's Not What We THINK!!
> > > > > > It's WHAT WE KNOW!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you would take the trouble to cite the section of the
> > > > > Constitution that guarantees the rights you have in mind...
> > > >
> > > > What car you drive off-company/private property would possibly be
> > > > protected by the 1st ammendment ( provided of course, your particular
> > pool
> > > > of choices all conform to the relevent laws/regulations. ).
> > >
> > > It would only be protected if the government were the one telling you
> > > you couldn't drive it. The Constitution doesn't apply to private
> > > relationships/contracts. It only limits the power of the government. If
> > > I wanted to pay Davis 100 bucks to shut the hell up, that would clearly
> > > be constitutional; so is an employer agreeing to employ a person so long
> > > as that person only buys Morgan Plus 8s.
> > >
> > > Even if it were the government, the chances of you successfully arguing
> > > that the type of car you drove was in some way protected speech under
> > > the 1st Amendment would be nil. A better argument would be a 5th
> > > Amendment "takings" contention, but that would only get you compensation
> > > for the loss of your property, not the property itself.
> 
> > Right on the first point, wrong on the second -- but for the same reason
> > you
> > are right on the first point.  You are entitled to protection under the
> > constitution
> > from 'takings" by the government.  The constitution does not generally
> > address,
> > as you state in your previous paragraph, contracts.
> >

I'm not sure what your criticism is here. Would you mind elaborating a
bit?


> 
> I'm a little less certain.  No court has ruled on any issue
> quite like this as far as I know--which isn't very far. 

I ran across a case this summer wherein an employer fired an at-will
employee for distributing literature on the employer's property which
was against the employer's interests, though I'll be damned if I can
remember the cite or even the caption. The court upheld the decision. 



 Maybe
> some law buff can come up with some case law.  My guess,
> though, is that the courts would rule that while a company has
> no obligation to provide parking (free or otherwise), that if
> such space is provided, the company cannot set unreasonable
> limits on what kinds of vehicles vehicles employees can drive
> to work. 

Well, I guess the first question would be "What is unreasonable?" Is it
unreasonable to insist that your employees buy Brand X car if your
company produces Brand X? Chrysler provides two different parking areas
at their headquarters in Auburn Hills, one for Chryco vehicles and the
other for "Competitive Vehicles". The Competitive Vehicle lot is further
from the door than the Chryco lot. Is this unreasonable?

My impression is that, absent a specific stautory provision, the
employer can fire you for whatever reason it wants. An at-will
employment relationship is just that: The employee can be fired for any
reason, or no reason (provided that it is not a reason prohibited by
statute, such as discrimination or labor activism). AFAIK, there is no
statute which protects the "driving rights" of workers.


 I'm actually more than a little surprised that Coke &
> Pepsi haven't been slapped down for their policies of firing
> workers for using the competitors' products on *or off* the
> job.