- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
They cannot be drunk or stoned at work, which is the consequence of smoking pot or drinking. You do not get un-drunk or un-stoned as soon as your break is over.
If they are stoned or drunk at the job, those jobs can't be very important. This is a good example of why Detroit is in the position it is today.
They're a HUGE insurance liability...that's the beef. If one of them is injured even if not "impaired" they must subject to drug test. The presence of alcohol in their system would be an insurance nightmare for the company. Not to mention if they are impaired they're not only putting themselves at risk, but anybody they work with as well...and if their impairment causes injury to another, that's an even BIGGER nightmare for the company.
They cannot be drunk or stoned at work, which is the consequence of smoking pot or drinking. You do not get un-drunk or un-stoned as soon as your break is over.
If they are stoned or drunk at the job, those jobs can't be very important. This is a good example of why Detroit is in the position it is today.
I'm not convinced anybody was impaired.
If their job performance wasn't affected whats the beef?
It used to be normal to drink moderately during the day, yet now we are act like someone has one beer and suddenly they have lost all self control, the reality isn't always meeting the perception.
This is one of the most profound examples of close-minded thinking I have ever seen. The union had nothing to do with the man getting caught drinking on the job, but they had a lot to do with him being given his job back. I wonder how many folks who are out of work and have been for some time deserve that job more than these idiots?
Are you suggesting that this kind of thing doesn't occur with non-union employees? If so then you might be interested in buying a bridge. Or how about some swampland in Florida? Beachfront property in Arizona?
This is one of the most profound examples of circular logic I have ever seen. A MAN WAS CAUGHT DRINKING ON THE JOB SO IMMEDIATELY THE UNION IS TO BLAME. Right. Reality check on aisle 6
The union is most definitely to blame. Why was arbitration necessary? Drinking on the job. Fired. Why wouldn't the union make sure people like this are fired? Why on earth would they spend tens of thousands of dollars defending people like this?
Because the people who run unions are completely devoid of a moral compass. Until people who belong to unions are willing to step up and say, "WTF????" People like me will believe, and rightly so, that unions are run by criminals.
I agree they should not have gotten their jobs back...I had 8700 people working for me and when I was the catalyst to get one fired, I was frustrated at times when that decision was overridden or reversed.
In this case I believe you are blameing the wrong entity. The union backs the employee and defends the employees posiition its a non union appointed arbiter that makes the decision...If you take your link and click to the next link to the source, it states it.
One other thing id like to point out that arbiters reinstating employees fired also happens in non union workplaces...it only doesnt happen as often because many time non union employees either dont pursue it or dont have a union to tell them can pursue it.
The arbiter isnt chosen by the union or chrysler not usually anyway to my knowledge.
Their cases ended up in arbitration and the arbitrator sided with the fired workers. They came back to work this week.
And now this statement from the auto maker:
Is it an issue to have A beer at lunch?
I know the evil unions are involved, but what about the over-reaching employers (who want to control ones behavior 24/7 when they only pay 8/7) and the insurance companies who rule by edict (the insurance industry sets automotive safety standards).
I guess what im saying is how much control are we accepting to eliminate ALL foreseeable risks?
(Might conceivably cause a problem someday for somebody, better just ban it outright instead of dealing with the hassle of punishing those who actually cause problems)
So you get a liberal sympathizer as an arbiter and the guy gets is job back. Why in the hell would this even go before an arbiter. The drinker has no case, the employer has proof he was drinking end of story. Fired, done, out of here. Nothing to talk about. Many companies have "0" tolerance policies, and drug testing, what is there to arbitrate? NOTHING
I don't think it's excessive to say you cannot drink alcohol before or during work. That's SOP for most companies, regardless of the risks involved with the jobs their employees perform.
If it was one beer on an hour break they would not even be too impaired to drive back to work. The company stepped way out of line with this. had they drug tested them and found them too intoxicated to work then you would have a point, and if they were actually drinking on the job and not their lunch break you would have a point. however, neither was done and the employees were fired over some pictures without even determining if they were capable of doing their job.
Of course that is all pointless anyway as this article is a clear attack on unions and trying to claim that unions want everyone to be drunk and on drugs while working. Instead the union actually did what it was supposed to do and protect employees terminated wrongly. Perhaps the unions are needed if this is what the employer does when they think they can. Maybe we do need unions in place to stop employers from overreaching into workers private lives. Employers are already trying to fire women for using their paychecks to buy birth control. Employers already fire people for smoking tobacco products on their free time. Employers already fire people for getting caught going out and drinking on their free time. Maybe if this sort of thing is stopped by unions it makes sense to have them in place.
Of course, this thread, and article that accompanies it, is an attack on unions, and an attempt by FOX News to demonize them. When you consider the fact that FOX News is not a legitimate news organization, but the propaganda arm of the Republican party, articles like this are to be expected.
Who gets a liberal sympathizer do you know who appoints the arbiter...it goes in front of an arbiter because believe it or not there are LAWS that have to be followed in this country...we dont allow tyrants to "RULE" others existences untethered and thank god for that. Lastly you nor I have the authority to make the decision who goes to arbitration or not...nice rant but no substance.
Is it an issue to have A beer at lunch?
I know the evil unions are involved, but what about the over-reaching employers (who want to control ones behavior 24/7 when they only pay 8/7) and the insurance companies who rule by edict (the insurance industry sets automotive safety standards).
I guess what im saying is how much control are we accepting to eliminate ALL foreseeable risks?
(Might conceivably cause a problem someday for somebody, better just ban it outright instead of dealing with the hassle of punishing those who actually cause problems)
Well, they could not have been terribly drunk or stoned as both are pretty obvious. You are trying to claim you get drunk off a beer or two, or even massively stoned off a joint and it lasts for hours. Really, I am a lighweight drinker. I am still pretty functional after a beer or two. Also, I did not see much proof offered aside from people claiming it was a joint or whatever. Even if it were a joint **** weed is not going to get you terribly high at all. Still, it doesn't last forever anyway and they clearly were not overly drunk or stoned as a supervisor could have clearly noted. You are making a huge issue over very little. Just the ideas you have that the moment you have a little to drink you are drunk, or even a toke off a joint will get you stoned shows you are relying on drug propaganda and BS for your opinions.
The reason why these guys are back is because there is no proof they were drunk or stoned while working, and that the effects of any drinking clearly did not effect their performance. This is why you should not rely on interpretation and innuendo by faux news and might want to sdeal with some facts before your knee jerk reactions to union stories wrap around and show how overreactionary you really are.
When I worked at Texas Instruments, my co-workers and me went out to this Mexican restaurant every Friday for lunch. We always had a beer with our lunch too. There was never any problem. The upper management at TI usually went out for 3 martini lunches too, at least once a week. And parties on the weekend? Upper management had a lot of those. I was invited to 2 of them, and they were both celebrations of drunkenness. For your information, Texas Instruments is NOT a union company.
Of course, this thread, and article that accompanies it, is an attack on unions, and an attempt by FOX News to demonize them. When you consider the fact that FOX News is not a legitimate news organization, but the propaganda arm of the Republican party, articles like this are to be expected.
And yet there's a laundry list of prescription drugs people take before and during work that impair one just as bad or worse than a beer.
Its just that beer is "fun" impairment and fun impairment is "bad" because its fun.
The whole drug war is based on this mindset.
I can get behind not getting high enough that your performance suffers at work. You are being paid after all.
Our current models are based on the simple math that its cheaper to ban behavior outright than to punish actual bad actors.
And I promise many executives have a glass of wine or a drink with lunch.
You don't get it. The employer has proof of drinking, he submits the evidence, end of story. There is nothing to arbitrate. Period. A company has a "0" tolerance policy and an employee is tested and has drugs in his system. He's fired. Nothing to arbitrate. Period. What your suggesting is every-time an employee gets fired he has the right to obtain arbitration. This is flat out false.
Unless of course your a union teacher and is caught molesting children and is the worst teacher in the world, you can't fire them. This is because these teachers are working in the best interest of the children's education.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?