• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated

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.

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.
 
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.


Perhaps it is that the insurance company is looking for any rweason, no matter how small, to avoid paying a claim. Their first thought is how can we get out of this because they don't want to ever paqy out for what they were contracted to. It is one thing if the guys were fall down drunk and clearly allowed to work when incapable of doing so safely, but if they went along through the day and no one even had the slightest idea they were intoxicated because their performance never was effected then that is a load of crap. That is something that should be taken up with the corrupt insurance companies who should be paying for accidents because that is what you pay them to do. Still, if it is a concern then it should come from the employees acting drunk or stoned when returning to work, and a drug test should follow to make solid proof. It should also stem from dangerous behavior or some form of accident and not from nothing at all. I go get in my car and drive, and if I do not do anything wrong to get pulled over a cop has no reason to stop me. There has to be a reason to investigate which there clearly was not and the unions protected the workers in this case.

Just because i am employed by you does not mean you get to dictate everything i do on my off time.
 
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.

Wrong - one can drink without being drunk. Logic fail.
 
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.
 
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.

No, companies never used to have rules and do drug and alcohol testing.

It is quite stupid to drink anywhere during working hours.

In fairness, I was a union member in my younger days, and saw the union fight tooth and nail to save the jobs of serious alcoholics, which PO'd the rest of us sober folks.

It also has no relation to the bailout, no matter the OP's opinion, which comes across as hyperbole.
 
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?

Does this really surprise anyone, hell you can't fire a union molesting dumbass teacher. And they say it's all about the kids.
 
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?

Sure it occurs with non-union employees. The big difference is, when they fire you for drinking on the job, you stay fired. You're gone, no more job, period. You know a person impaired on the job and gets a serous injury who pays for that? Let me tell you. Work Comp Ins, which the employer pays for, and the more injures on the job the higher the cost of Work Comp Ins.
 
Doesn't matter if they were drunk or not. You can't drink, even on your break, then come back and work on or around heavy machinery. Period. Likely, this was all covered as part of the terms of employment.
 
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.
 
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.

That is exactly right, the union employees know the union will back them up if caught drinking. Thus the union endorses drinking on the job, otherwise they would say "Your fired"
 
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:
 
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:

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
 
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)

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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

If you saw the video you would see union workers smoking pot, drinking, and that the Union spokesman denied ever seeing this happening and said it was definitely not allowed.

Fox News was tipped off by two different employees in the plant who didn't want to work beside drunks and potheads.

At the end of the report the reporters who covered the story said that the huge majority of Chrysler workers are hard working responsible people who didn't want their reputations besmirched by those who use drugs during their breaks, and at least one who appears to be taking beer to work.

The reporters pointed out they they were not against Unions as they were also Union members.

Attacking the messenger, in this case Fox news, is pointless. The real test is whether the story is true or not, and in this case there is no doubt that it is.
 
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.

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.
 
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)

Since when can an auto worker stop at one beer?
 
I don't understand why the unions would even want to give these guys their jobs back or fight for them unless they were completely stupid (which I do believe they probably are).

I think stimulus spending should be used to hire a cop to supervise the workers and haul them off to jail when they whip out marijuana or are drinking and then operate machinery ;)
 
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.

So you think it is OK to be a little drunk or a little stoned when working on a line with heavy machinery?

You have no information on how many beers or joints were used so to defend drunk or high employees is wrong.

Where did you get your perspective that it is OK to be intoxicated on the job, any job?
 
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.

Please stop being an Obama parrot. Those exact words come from his administration.

Try to find your own way to say you don't like the truth being told.
 
In Germany, workers often had a mandatory contract for employer provided beer during their lunch break. Drinking a single Coors light is less debilitating on average than the sleep deprivation that you see with most hospital workers who literally have lives in their hands. I wouldn't judge the situation with the employees unless all the specifics details are known.
 
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.

If you test positive for narcotics (even with a prescription) after a work related accident you can be suspended from duties until such time as the prescription has run its course in some states. The fact of the matter is, asking employees to refrain from alcohol or drugs immediately before or during the work day is simply not unreasonable. And your point on the CEO/executives is moot, because I personally feel the rule should apply to them as well...and them exempting themselves doesn't make the rule any less practical.
 
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.

You dont get it and your not even worth 1 sec more time..
 
Back
Top Bottom