Yes, but if the rules are unreasonable, that is another matter.
How else could such a rule be enforced, without violating a person's right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures??
For example, If they require you to be drug free, should they not then also have the right to search your home for drugs too?? At what point to you draw the line??
.
When I worked in the oilfields, they would call us every once in a while to a meeting at the lease Admin. building after work. The admin building was an old school, and alot of the rooms' had only one door out. While we were in having some sort of safety seminar, they had security guards' searching cars' out in the parking lot with dogs, looking for some kind of narcotics.
This came to an abrupt end, when someone had to duck out of the class to do something. He saw someone going through his car. He came back into the room and told the rest of us about it. The guy running the class told us what it was-a drug search. We all went out, watched them finish, then left and went home.
We simply never went to another seminar, ever again(while I worked there.)
As I mentioned before, the employer had a hold-harmless agreement, and it extended to searches. When we went on the oil lease, we had signed a waiver automatically consenting to random searches. I had heard from a fellow worker, that the one guy who tried to win a case in court(They had found something in his car when searched) lost, because this waiver was the first thing given to the judge and jury.
The thing is, if employers' make random searches, with firearms' on the forbidden list, what will the court do? Even if it's law, what happens' if the employee's have to sign waivers' as a condition of employment? Will the law override any such signed document? Or will the Contract/Waiver prevail?
Kinda like,what comes first, the chicken, or the egg?
