"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
Research Monday Cars.
"Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me
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)
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
Maybe the company stepped way out of line with firing these guys for doing something that can be done responsibly. Yes, you can have a beer or two without getting drunk. Oh, and as for the joint thing you have drug tests for a reason. You don't just fire them because some prude news reporter was snapping pictures and caught a guy doing something totally legal.
WTF does this have to do with the bailout anyway? This seems to be a story where the union actually helped people who were fired for the wrong reason. You are supposed to be against unions, not showing them protecting workers on their lunch break. I mean these guys even obeyed the law by drinking out of paper bags so as not to be openly drinking alcohol in public which was a prude law passed by the puritanical christian dip****s who drink like fishes anyway. Christ your saviour was made half of wine and yet you pretend like alcohol is the worst thing in the world.
yet another story of right wing BS over absolutely nothing. Seriously, it was their lunch break and as long as they returned sober enough and did their job then they did not do anything to get fired over to begin with.
These days there are laws to protect working people, and of course good reliable workers will always be at a premium.
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.
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.