• 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

tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really don't disagree as much as you might think.

It's more the principle of the thing.

And an anti-union activists home video shouldn't be grounds for dismissal. Sets a real bad precedent. Would it stand as "proof" in a court of law?
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just cannot believe they fall for it. I mean half the people watching faux are probably slurping down a beer as they do it and not realizing that fox is trying to get them angry over something they are doing at that moment and should be allowed to do as responsible adults. Maybe faux news fans support prohibition?
 
Mason66 said:
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?
Click to expand...

If I have no information then you have no information. the people who do have the information hired them back so what does that say to you? It says to me they were fired as an overreaction and their work was not effected therefor they were reinstated. had they been fall down drunk they would have been indefensible and they would still be out of a job. o please do not tell me that i have no information so you must be right on the same lack of information. At least my ideas are supported by the resolution.
 
tererun said:
If I have no information then you have no information. the people who do have the information hired them back so what does that say to you? It says to me they were fired as an overreaction and their work was not effected therefor they were reinstated. had they been fall down drunk they would have been indefensible and they would still be out of a job. o please do not tell me that i have no information so you must be right on the same lack of information. At least my ideas are supported by the resolution.
Click to expand...

Yet another one who is responding without watching the video.
 
So, what, people who drink on the job should never be allowed to have any job again ever?
 
Mason66 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well by all means please show us where the Obama administration used those exact words.
 
Grant said:
Yet another one who is responding without watching the video.
Click to expand...
I watched the video and the reporter was so sure they were drunk driving that he didn't call the police. So he caught some guys taking a break and alcohol and pot burn off pretty fast if you don't drink a lot which they did not. An hour from that break they would be clean sober. They were not drunk, they were not high. They were not even really buzzed. They were just relaxed on their break. You know what? I bet they work hard to make those cars so take a good break and relax, you did a job that was hard work. yes, I am on that guys side, and yeah he deserves his job back.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
Chrysler workers canned for drinking on the job reinstated | Fox News




So we the taxpayers bail out the unions car companies, employees are caught drinking on their lunch break, going back to work under the influence, are fired and now they get their jobs back? And some wonder why anyone has a problem with unions?
Click to expand...

Its between them and their employer and is none of my business. I didnt support the bailout and still dont. That said what they do between themselves is none of my affair. If they were my employees or contractors they wouldnt be back due to poor judgement. They are not my employees. So I am not worring about it.
 
They were not doing it on the job. It was lunch break. A somewhat extenuating circumstance. If they were caught "on the job," it would be a different story.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its between them and their employer and is none of my business. I didnt support the bailout and still dont. That said what they do between themselves is none of my affair. If they were my employees or contractors they wouldnt be back due to poor judgement. They are not my employees. So I am not worring about it.
Click to expand...

At those levels it does not interfere with life, it makes it more robust. As long as it does not impair their production I am all for it. Yes you can drink a forty in an hour and be completely sober and reacting fine. Fine to do a job you do a whole lot so you know all about it. I bet those guys could probably do their jobs high as a kite. but they certainly would not have been high as a kite on that. Take it from me I am an admitted drug taker. I have been on what they were on and they really are just singing themselves a tune at work. That is fine by me.
 
What if...? said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even if you have a legal prescription for a medication if it makes you drowsy or impairs judgement you can be charged if you operate motor vehicles, there are still restrictions on legal prescription use. It's also illegal for many in healthcare to use them while at work. A pharmacist I used to work with had a tooth procedure done and had to work 14 hours without taking any of his pain medication and told me it's illegal to practice pharmacy under the influence of any substance, the same is true for many other healthcare professionals.
 
Born Free said:
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.
Click to expand...
The employees were fired and there is little evidence aside from FoxNews that they were hired back.
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree and I also agree those chrysler employees should not have been re instated...what I did want to convey quite plainly to those that say the UNION got them reinstated is that is NOT TRUE...the union represents the employee...the arbitrator is chosen not by the union..most times by the court...and the union presents their case to him and the company and the independent arbiter makes the decision..if its in contract by the two parties the arbitrators decision is binding then thats that..if not the losing side gets to go to court...Chrysler decided not to pursue it and move on...
 
I'm not a union member however even my job has an arbitration clause I could invoke upon being fired. Its all laid out in the contract I signed when I was hired. I don't see the issue.
 
tererun said:
At those levels it does not interfere with life, it makes it more robust. As long as it does not impair their production I am all for it. Yes you can drink a forty in an hour and be completely sober and reacting fine. Fine to do a job you do a whole lot so you know all about it. I bet those guys could probably do their jobs high as a kite. but they certainly would not have been high as a kite on that. Take it from me I am an admitted drug taker. I have been on what they were on and they really are just singing themselves a tune at work. That is fine by me.
Click to expand...

I dont care if people want to drink do drugs whatever floats their boat. But if they work for me part of my stipulation is 12 hrs bottle to throttle and 48hrs for for anything else. They cant handle that that cant work for me. I have liablities when I employ people, I have the right to limit those liabilities best I can. In MY opinion which by the way, would be the one that counts if I hired them, these people utilized poor judgement and unnessarily exposed the company to additional legal liability. If they an accident they would have been tested and most likely have failed that test which puts the company at risk. It for that reason I would canned their ass permanetly. But I dont have dog in this fight and dont rightly care. Chysler wants to hire em back thats their perogative, though to be honest they are being stupid. Any accident that happens at that facility now will put Chrysler at a lot more legal risk than it was, and rightly so. The law dont give a rats ass what you can do and how well you can do it while you are drunk, stoned or whatever else, you and your judgement are considered impaired. If the company knows that you are impaired by whatever and does nothing is completly and totaly ****ed. They will be most likely shutting their doors. Anybody thats in business knows this. If they dont, they aint in business for long.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
The taxpayers bailed out the struggling car company - FACT
This was not a negotiation, this was the ruling of an arbitrator - FACT
No way in hell these guys should have their jobs back, bailout or no.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, just because they were caught drinking at work doesn't mean they should be prohibited from working any place ever.

They still need to make a living, after all, and at least they're doing it by doing an honest job.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished - they should. But we also shouldn't prohibit them from working, or be surprised that they find work after making a mistake.
 
tererun said:
I watched the video and the reporter was so sure they were drunk driving that he didn't call the police. So he caught some guys taking a break and alcohol and pot burn off pretty fast if you don't drink a lot which they did not. An hour from that break they would be clean sober. They were not drunk, they were not high. They were not even really buzzed. They were just relaxed on their break. You know what? I bet they work hard to make those cars so take a good break and relax, you did a job that was hard work. yes, I am on that guys side, and yeah he deserves his job back.
Click to expand...

Did you see the part where it was their fellow employees who tipped off the media, those who didn't want to work with drunks and potheads?

Those employees knew they were in the wrong when they tried to flee the scene, otherwise they would have just stayed where they were.

I don;t see how you could have possibly watched the video all the way through.
 
Deuce said:
So, what, people who drink on the job should never be allowed to have any job again ever?
Click to expand...

samsmart said:
Well, to be fair, just because they were caught drinking at work doesn't mean they should be prohibited from working any place ever.

They still need to make a living, after all, and at least they're doing it by doing an honest job.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished - they should. But we also shouldn't prohibit them from working, or be surprised that they find work after making a mistake.
Click to expand...

Where did I say any job? If I was drinking on my break at work and got caught, I'd be fired from that job. It doesn't mean that I can't walk across the street and get a job there. :roll:
 
tessaesque said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also -- they are automakers. They are building cars that people drive at 70 miles an hour down the interstate. It concerns me to know that someone was drinking and smoking pot, while they are supposed to be building cars.
 
Moot said:
The employees were fired and there is little evidence aside from FoxNews that they were hired back.
Click to expand...
So when Chrysler said they disagreed with the choice to bring these workers back, they were just misinformed by Fox News? Fox News just made it all up and managed to bamboozle the company and their HR department? You know, that had to bring them back following the union arbitration? So Fox made up the statement to them about the matter? Oh sure. You bet ya. How clever of them!:doh
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
So when Chrysler said they disagreed with the choice to bring these workers back, they were just misinformed by Fox News? Fox News just made it all up and managed to bamboozle the company and their HR department that had to bring them back after the union arbitration to release a statement to them about the matter?
Chrysler reinstates workers fired for drinking, smoking weed on the job:doh
Click to expand...
The tweets source was still FoxNews and there is still no verifiable evidence that Chrysler hired them back. Not even a tweet.
 
Moot said:
The tweets source was still FoxNews and there is still no verifiable evidence that Chrysler hired them back. Not even a tweet.
Click to expand...
Are you under the impression that Chrysler's HR department tweets anything? I mean literally anything at all? Much less the results of arbitration? I'm not. Tell you what, I'm going to go with common sense and the wild arsed guess that since Fox was following this story all along, they probably know what they are talking about. Now I know that there is a large contingent of people on the internet that would buy into the idea that Fox would and does routinely just make up stories and post them online so they can be called out on it by any of many "watchdogs" that comb through everything Fox airs. Fortunately I'm not one of them, but I tell you what. When you find out that they just made this all up and get your proof, please do come back right here and share about it. Inquiring minds................
 
Gie said:
Are you under the impression that Chrysler's HR department tweets anything? I mean literally anything at all? Much less the results of arbitration? I'm not. Tell you what, I'm going to go with common sense and the wild arsed guess that since Fox was following this story all along, they probably know what they are talking about. Now I know that there is a large contingent of people on the internet that would buy into the idea that Fox would and does routinely just make up stories and post them online so they can be called out on it by any of many "watchdogs" that comb through everything Fox airs. Fortunately I'm not one of them, but I tell you what. When you find out that they just made this all up and get your proof, please do come back right here and share about it. Inquiring minds................
Click to expand...

Whew!! It doesn't seem to be getting any better. Unlike drinking and smoking dope, this is a serious tragedy.

Murder-Suicide Of Chrysler Workers Followed Fight On Plant Floor, Police Say - Careers Articles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom