I see the problem now. I never brought “negotiate” into the conversation – you did.

All I said was that I was not sure why the employer should have any say on activities outside of work that are not related to the employment. That is consistent with employment law.

Somehow you morphed that into a “negotiation for at will employment” argument that never made sense to me and now I know why.

The employee most certainly can fire the boss. That’s what happens when you quit — your boss loses his job. He is not your boss anymore. Yes, you can’t stop him from being someone else’s boss. But an employer can’t fire you from other jobs either.

I don’t see how you can argue that someone should not have a right to demand a negotiation outside of employment and work-related issues without saying that employees shouldn’t have the right to quit for non work-related reasons. If I want the right to quit because I don’t like my boss’ wife, in exchange I give my boss the right to fire me because he doesn’t like what I do on my time. If I don’t want this deal, I’m free to negotiate a different one, but most people really do want at-will employment.

It’s easy to imagine you can get a better deal, where the other side gives up something of value to them, at the same price. But you can’t. If you want something, whether you negotiate for it or the government forcefully takes it from the other party and gives it to you, you always pay for it because it decreases your value.

The boss doesn’t have to negotiate on the hair.

The difference in these two scenarios is that in yours, the employee cannot fire the boss from the company for disagreeing on an issue.

In the real world example I gave, the boss can fire the person. The issue is not a “at will” employment, but whether someone has a right to demand a negotiation outside of employment and work related issues as well.

That’s just the nature of an at will arrangement. If something matters to one party, even if it “shouldn’t”, then they can negotiate about it. If you’re willing to not come to work with a gun for an extra $50/week and I’m willing to pay you that extra $50/week, why should the government say to two people who both agree, “No, you can’t make that deal?”

I believe you are putting the cart before the horse in saying to negotiate for the restrictions or whatever.

Why should I negotiate for something that the employer should not have the ability to restrict in the first place?

I can’t follow the thinking behind an employer not being able to ask how an employee gets to work, but being able to control the contents of a car the employee comes to work in. My mind doesn’t track the idea that the employer can restrict what I do on my time, but is not legally responsible for my actions on my time.

I can understand an employer saying he doesn’t want a weapon in the building and as long as he is paying the employee, that seems reasonable to me.

But in my car? On my time? Telling me what legal product I can have in my possession? When I pull onto a parking lot?

I can’t go with that at this point. (But I am willing to listen.)

You want to keep the right to quit your job for any reason, even a silly one. In exchange, you give your employer the right to fire you for silly reasons. If you want different terms, negotiate for them.

If I am hiring someone, I cannot ask how they are going to get to work. I can only ask if there is something that will prevent them from getting to work on time. I can’t ask if they are going to take a bus, own a car, or will ride a bike. So if I cannot ask about the means of conveyance, why does the employer have the right to say what a person can legally carry IN that conveyance? What is legally in a car has no bearing on the business, so why would someone say the business owner has the right to control the contents of the vehicle?

Secondly, while I understand the idea of the rights of property owners to have “approve” what someone brings onto private property, I am not sure that is the same absolute right in the public arena of a business. For example, I can tell someone that they can’t wear a cross on my private property. I can’t do that in the business.

I also keep thinking that it is one thing for an employer to tell an employee what they can do on the clock, but it is another thing to demand something when that employee is off the clock. If you want to pay me when I pull on the parking lot, that is fine with me. But unless you are, I am not sure you have the right to tell me what I can have in my car.

Where would it end if this were the case? Can an employer say “you can’t bring a GM car onto the parking lot?” How about “you can’t have a Bible in your car?” Can an employer say “I hate the Yankees, you can’t have a Yankee sticker on your car on my business’ property.”

I realize that I am using the time honored internet tradition of taking something to the extreme to make a point, but why break with tradition?

I guess what I am trying to say is that when I am working for someone and being paid, they can direct me to do what they want (within certain restrictions.) If I am not being paid, I am not sure they can control my life in a way that prevents me from possessing a legal item in a legal manner.

And hence, what you posed was a false dichotomy.