Chrysler workers caught smoking pot and boozing on lunch breaks...AGAIN.

[airdata]

I'd hire somebody who takes a single toke at lunch over somebody who takes 4-5 cigarette breaks per day and disturbs everybody w\ their stench and coughing.

 

[Tsavo]

The thing I take away from this is the pure glee in knowing that these dipshitz threw away the one and only gravy train they will ever see in their entire lives.

 

[woolfe9999]

wtf? Do you even have a job? For most of us, drinking and doing illegal shit on the job is reason for immediate firing. If I smoke weed at work, I would be fired. If I show up drunk, I would be fired. I have a friend who really did show up to work drunk and he was fired (movie ticket sales guy). Another friend had to fire someone because she was drinking rum and coke on her lunch break.

At some unions, like UAW, there's just no way to fire anyone. Things that would get normal people fired are not enough to get union people fired.

I understand that it is good grounds for termination. That doesn't make the story newsworthy, that a private company has workers loafing and smoking pot on the job. Workers at a private company do things that are grounds for termination, film at 11! I see no evidence that workers are more likely to do this if they are in a union.

Your second point is beginning to flesh out how you link this to the union - you think it's impossible for these people to be fired for this because it's a union shop. Do we know these people aren't going to be fired? If so, then I'd say you have a point.

I did read this in the article:

The employees that we identify, as soon as we understand who they are, will be suspended indefinitely without pay and anybody else involved will be dealt with swiftly. It's very frustrating to us, we take it very seriously.

Don't know if that is the equivalent of firing or not. It implies the possibility that they could return to work. Is that the outrage here?

Then the union hates on the guys who are not crackheads because "you guys not-smoking crack are making us all look bad" duuuuurrrrrrrr no shit!

What are you even talking about here? I read nothing even remotely resembling this in the linked article. Someone is smoking crack, but it isn't anyone in the union...

- wolf

 

[xj0hnx]

I understand that it is good grounds for termination. That doesn't make the story newsworthy, that a private company has workers loafing and smoking pot on the job. Workers at a private company do things that are grounds for termination, film at 11! I see no evidence that workers are more likely to do this if they are in a union.

You're just being foolish now. There is a big difference between a bunch of Taco Bell workers getting high, and people that are making automobiles that are going to be on the roads getting wasted at lunch, if you can't see that than that's pretty sad.

 

[Tsavo]

You're just being foolish now. There is a big difference between a bunch of Taco Bell workers getting high, and people that are making automobiles that are going to be on the roads getting wasted at lunch, if you can't see that than that's pretty sad.

As fate would have it, Taco Bell is probably the only place these dirt bags will ever find work at.

 

[ShawnD1]

Second, you are posting a lot of fact-free ideology. It's a baseless rant.

I'm pissed off because the dickwad postal works here went on strike for something like 2 days and the result of that is me getting my Visa bill 1 day after the due date. Date on the bill is June 22, date I receive the bill is July 14. Usually it takes a week to get the bills but 3 fucking weeks? What the hell is up with these union bastards? I'm not the only person who's having bills show up weeks late, being paid late, having huge interest on them. Luckily the call centre people in India were nice enough to drop the interest and late fees added to my account for the next 2 months.

I just hate unions in general. Any time they throw a hissy fit, it completely shuts down the entire system, and they basically hold everyone hostage for their own personal gain. Back before email, it was postal workers going on strike every Christmas, year after year. They wait until the largest mail time of the year then they take hostages. Before we privatized alcohol sales, there was a unionized group called the Alberta Liquor Control Board and they would strike every summer. When everyone wants a cold beer in the sun, they strike, hold everyone hostage until their demands are met, then act like it's no big deal. Garbage men have a union that strikes in the summer because summer is when old garbage smells very bad if it stays out for too long.

It just doesn't seem right to do that to everyone, consistently, all the time. Some unions are fairly reasonable, but that seems like a fringe minority.

 

[Paul98]

wtf? Do you even have a job? For most of us, drinking and doing illegal shit on the job is reason for immediate firing. If I smoke weed at work, I would be fired. If I show up drunk, I would be fired. I have a friend who really did show up to work drunk and he was fired (movie ticket sales guy). Another friend had to fire someone because she was drinking rum and coke on her lunch break.

At some unions, like UAW, there's just no way to fire anyone. Things that would get normal people fired are not enough to get union people fired. Then the union hates on the guys who are not crackheads because "you guys not-smoking crack are making us all look bad" duuuuurrrrrrrr no shit!

All depends on where you work, one of my friends gets beer brought to them AT work lol. I have gone out to lunch times where we have drinks. After a couple drinks most people will be able to function at there job just as well as if they were sober.

 

[ShawnD1]

(normal people making crackheads look bad)
What are you even talking about here? I read nothing even remotely resembling this in the linked article. Someone is smoking crack, but it isn't anyone in the union...

It's a union thing in general. My mom was a union worker, and her hour long bus to work would sometimes get there 5 minutes early or 5 minutes late. If she gets there late, just start late and it's not a big deal. If she got there 5 minutes early, people would actually give her shit for working when she's not supposed to. Apparently working for free (to balance out the times late) makes the rest of the union look bad. She received an official written notice from the union and everything.

So yeah, if you act like a normal human being, unions WILL come after you. You can't break solidarity. If the bulk of the workers are horrible at their job, you need to be equally horrible.

 

[mrjminer]

You're just being foolish now. There is a big difference between a bunch of Taco Bell workers getting high, and people that are making automobiles that are going to be on the roads getting wasted at lunch, if you can't see that than that's pretty sad.

I think the sad part is that you are serious in your supreme ignorance, fallacies, and ideology. I do, of course, like your pathetic attempts at providing an example that you've supposed upon him. The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible for these workers to take actions that result in a "dangerous" car being on the road due to the safeguards in place by the auto industry, in addition to additional manufacturer standards.

Regardless of that fact, though, you seem to be under the impression that because they are a private company making popular public goods, the company and their employees lose the ability to make independent decisions and/or deal with the consequences of their actions. Sorry, but that is the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. What about the toy makers that buy lead paint to save a few dollars and poison a bunch of kids? They weren't drinking or smoking green. The chef that undercooks some meat and gives a bunch of people E-coli? How about people that just suck at whatever they're doing and cause accidents? For example... what about a shitty driver? Religion? Lots of death involved in religion, let's take away that freedom, too, because it's obvious religions can't manage their members responsibly.

All of the above are infinitely more dangerous, but I don't see you arguing to remove the drive for profits, cooking food, driving, or religion. I guess that makes you the most dangerous of them all, by your logic.

 

[matt0611]

Just like every other company, they assume responsibility when something goes wrong due to gross negligence. The scariest part is that you think this causes, has caused, or will cause serious problems based on years of it having no effect whatsoever, or that you think they're so incapacitated that they are unable to do their job. Like they're all just staggering around with no safety precautions, pre-shipping tests, etc. and that an individual worker builds a car without any checks, then it is directly shipped.

Do I think it's OK to drink alcohol during lunch breaks then go back to work to make cars that people drive on the road at 70 MPH? You're damn right I do. Don't like how they build their cars, then don't buy them. Welcome to America.

Oh trust me, I will not be buying any cars made by Chrysler.
Not like I would have anyway, but after seeing this, it just cements my decision even more.

 

[xj0hnx]

I think the sad part is that you are serious in your supreme ignorance, fallacies, and ideology. I do, of course, like your pathetic attempts at providing an example that you've supposed upon him. The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible for these workers to take actions that result in a "dangerous" car being on the road due to the safeguards in place by the auto industry, in addition to additional manufacturer standards.

Regardless of that fact, though, you seem to be under the impression that because they are a private company making popular public goods, the company and their employees lose the ability to make independent decisions and/or deal with the consequences of their actions. Sorry, but that is the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. What about the toy makers that buy lead paint to save a few dollars and poison a bunch of kids? They weren't drinking or smoking green. The chef that undercooks some meat and gives a bunch of people E-coli? How about people that just suck at whatever they're doing and cause accidents? For example... what about a shitty driver? Religion? Lots of death involved in religion, let's take away that freedom, too, because it's obvious religions can't manage their members responsibly.

All of the above are infinitely more dangerous, but I don't see you arguing to remove the drive for profits, cooking food, driving, or religion. I guess that makes you the most dangerous of them all, by your logic.

You are a fool, and your ideological slip is showing. Sorry, but because people screw up doesn't make this somehow excusable no matter your love of unions.

I don't personally give a shit that they are union people, that doesn't matter at all, what matters is that they are getting hammered at lunch and then going back to the assembly line to make a product that is going to be on the roads by the tens of thousands, and only an ideological moron is going to try to excuse this.

 

[Macamus Prime]

You alright! They learned it by watching you!

If America's wealthy and powerful wish for the commoners to be more moral, than maybe said wealthy and powerful should stop:
- worshiping money
- misusing God's name and intent to justify their evil ways
- abuse illegal drugs
- abuse legal drugs
- abuse alcohol
- abuse their spouse/children (verbal, emotional and physical)
- abuse their bodies (plastic surgery, etc.)
- being racist

What is worse, it's idiots like those who support America's wealthy and powerful, who eat every turd,... and label people who oppose them as communist terrorist child eating devil worshipers who are out to kill and destroy all white people.

Keep eat rich people's shit, moron.

 

[woolfe9999]

You are a fool, and your ideological slip is showing. Sorry, but because people screw up doesn't make this somehow excusable no matter your love of unions.

I don't personally give a shit that they are union people, that doesn't matter at all, what matters is that they are getting hammered at lunch and then going back to the assembly line to make a product that is going to be on the roads by the tens of thousands, and only an ideological moron is going to try to excuse this.

You may not give a shit that they're union, but this would not be in the news if they weren't, because it isn't newsworthy otherwise. The OP posted this because of the union angle. It's quite clear from his commentary. It's newsworthiness is contingent on the political slant of the reader, period. Workers loafing around and smoking weed on break is about the least newsworthy subject I can imagine. I get your point about the safety issue, but I think cars go through extensive QA before hitting the road. I'm not trying to excuse what the workers did - obviously they should be fired. I just don't think this is any sort of news and if you think Fox is investigating what non-union workers do on their breaks then you're incredibly naive.

- wolf

 

[xj0hnx]

Not thinking it's news worthy simply because of who reported it is silly. I'd say that people who's job it is, is to assemble vehicles that are on the road getting tank during lunch is a pretty news worthy story. And who's saying that those QA people aren't right there with them?

 

[mrjminer]

You are a fool, and your ideological slip is showing. Sorry, but because people screw up doesn't make this somehow excusable no matter your love of unions.

I don't personally give a shit that they are union people, that doesn't matter at all, what matters is that they are getting hammered at lunch and then going back to the assembly line to make a product that is going to be on the roads by the tens of thousands, and only an ideological moron is going to try to excuse this.

Ideological slip? I guess if that's what you call... supporting the freedom of decision and responsibility of actions. Me loving unions? Sorry, but I don't see where I mentioned that I even believe unions should be in existence. Again, a pathetic attempt at supposing an argument upon someone to support whatever point you are unable to make.

Like I said before, if you don't like the way they presumably "make a product that is going to be on the roads by tens of thousands," then don't buy their product. Just like the other guy that wanted to make an idiotic, unfounded argument out of nothing than blind, subjective morality through ignorance, I welcome you to America, as well.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not thinking it's news worthy simply because of who reported it is silly. I'd say that people who's job it is, is to assemble vehicles that are on the road getting tank during lunch is a pretty news worthy story. And who's saying that those QA people aren't right there with them?

I didn't say it isn't newsworthy because of who's reporting it. I said it isn't newsworthy because people loafing on the job generally isn't newsworthy. I *additionally* accused Fox of selectively investigating this because it's a union shop, but the non-newsorthiness of this is inherent and has nothing to do with the source.

I'd say if the QA people were right there with them, then management needs to take a look at whatever work product they were responsible for. Somehow, however, I doubt anyone would decide not to buy one of their cars because of this article.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ideological slip? I guess if that's what you call... supporting the freedom of decision and responsibility of actions.

Responsibility of actions? Freedom of decisions? They had freedom of decisions and responsibility and they choose to get wasted during lunch and go back to assembling automobiles.

 

[mrjminer]

Responsibility of actions? Freedom of decisions? They had freedom of decisions and responsibility and they choose to get wasted during lunch and go back to assembling automobiles.

Yes, and they will be dealt with according to the actions of Chrysler, as they see fit.

I'm not going to waste my time with your idiocy any longer. I've given several examples of how you are not only simply putting words into others mouths to make some malformed argument, but how you're holding these workers to a different standard than every other worker on the planet, even though every other worker on the planet, in any regard of capacity, can cause the death of others. In other words, you'd rather hold these poor bastards to some sort of minority report standard, but with the mechanism for prediction being your own ideals.

 

[nick1985]

I wouldn't buy a Chrysler in a million fucking years.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes, and they will be dealt with according to the actions of Chrysler, as they see fit.

I'm not going to waste my time with your idiocy any longer. I've given several examples of how you are not only simply putting words into others mouths to make some malformed argument, but how you're holding these workers to a different standard than every other worker on the planet, even though every other worker on the planet, in any regard of capacity, can cause the death of others. In other words, you'd rather hold these poor bastards to some sort of minority report standard, but with the mechanism for prediction being your own ideals.

You're a joke.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'm not sure who is the most high and/or drunk - these workers, the people who are defending their actions, or the people who buy Chrysler cars in the year 2011.

I am generally pro-union, but assembling a car is, like being an airline pilot or bus driver, not a job that can safely be handled while under the influence. Fairly or unfairly, being an automotive executive is not such a job, so I don't think the observation that these stories are "unfair" rings true.

 

[RFE]

Just like every other company, they assume responsibility when something goes wrong due to gross negligence. The scariest part is that you think this causes, has caused, or will cause serious problems based on years of it having no effect whatsoever, or that you think they're so incapacitated that they are unable to do their job. Like they're all just staggering around with no safety precautions, pre-shipping tests, etc. and that an individual worker builds a car without any checks, then it is directly shipped.

Do I think it's OK to drink alcohol during lunch breaks then go back to work to make cars that people drive on the road at 70 MPH? You're damn right I do. Don't like how they build their cars, then don't buy them. Welcome to America.

Either you haven't worked in an industrial setting or you've been oblivious to the dangers surrounding most of the workforce in such a setting. In addition to the concerns voiced by others (build quality), you'd be fine with a fork lift driver or crane operator that is high or drunk (two examples of many)? Consumer safety, consumer confidence, and workplace safety should be of no concern to the management team or the individual contributors?

This bit of your post really takes the cake, though: "Don't like how they build their cars, then don't buy them." The few irresponsible line workers don't dictate the business plan or strategy. Yet, here's the attitude from union apologists.

 

[Hammerman]

No kidding??!!! Must be why my muffler bearings on the Grand Cherokee were installed sideways and torqued out of spec... Damn boozers!!!

 

[tcsenter]

I'm not sure who is the most high and/or drunk - these workers, the people who are defending their actions, or the people who buy Chrysler cars in the year 2011.

Believe me, its just as much of a problem at Ford and GM. Hell, for all we know, Chrysler may actually have tried harder to get rid of these guys since the last bunch was exposed in 2010, while Ford and GM are business as usual since it wasn't their workers caught. That's how these things work. If it wasn't our plant, if it wasn't our union local, the union prevents the company from taking any action. The only reason this is getting reported now is because the auto companies got a loan from the tax payers. Its been going on for decades and I believe it was much worse in the past.

The UAW druggies and boozers I knew used to smugly refer to this stuff "fringe benefits". You know, like the executives up in their luxury offices, snorting cocaine, getting blow jobs from the "suckretaries", and having a couple martinis. I swear I've heard that 20 times from UAW members in response to this subject (most of the auto workers I knew were GM workers because we had no Ford or Chrysler plants in the area I grew up).

Let me tell you how this would have been handled 20 years ago. They would NOT be fired. They would be suspended and would get their jobs back as long as they completed an outpatient substance abuse program, which was paid-for by their health insurance. There would NOT even be any mandatory drug screening after they returned to work. They were required to pass a drug test ONCE prior to being reinstated but not after.

After a period of time, their record would be expunged. If they got into trouble again, the expunged offenses could NOT be used against them in any subsequent disciplinary actions. They were starting over as though it were their first offense.

Its hilarious that no matter how much proof you supply, no matter how many people who grew up in these towns and personally knew dozens of workers in those plants confirm what went on there, some people absolutely refuse to admit of any connection whatsoever to the shit quality put-out by the Big Three from the late 1970s to late 1990s or the inability of the Big Three to compete with the Japanese (who themselves have strong unions, pay high wages, and great benefits). Nope, its all management, even though the Japanese have proven what the real problem was all-along by kicking our ass in factories built right here on our own turf SANS THE UAW.

 

[mrjminer]

Either you haven't worked in an industrial setting or you've been oblivious to the dangers surrounding most of the workforce in such a setting. In addition to the concerns voiced by others (build quality), you'd be fine with a fork lift driver or crane operator that is high or drunk (two examples of many)? Consumer safety, consumer confidence, and workplace safety should be of no concern to the management team or the individual contributors?

This bit of your post really takes the cake, though: "Don't like how they build their cars, then don't buy them." The few irresponsible line workers don't dictate the business plan or strategy. Yet, here's the attitude from union apologists.

Perhaps you are unable to read. Nevertheless, since it is the only means of communication here, I suppose I am left with no other option than to state the obvious to you: it is the responsibility and concern of the management team and individual contributors, it is not yours beyond deciding whether or not you wish to buy their vehicle. Private businesses are not public entities, hence the word "private." To imply that these workers drinking or smoking some weed on the job is a public endangerment issue just because people choose to purchase their product is an irresponsible and unfounded logical leap. If you don't like what their workers do, or what the company does about it, you are free to refuse to buy a car from them. If you are afraid that this somehow makes the roads less safe for you, then feel free to find a trail and hike your ass to where you would like to go.

As far as calling me a "union apologist," I guess this again goes to the point about you being unable to read. Of course, feel free to make more faulty presumptions about me to attempt to fuel your illogical opinion, for I find the stupidity of others particularly amusing when I am drinking. I see the issue as nothing more than idiots whining in an attempt to control the actions of private businesses and having nothing to do with unionization. Thus far, everyone who believes this is some great offense against the public has been able to do nothing other than simply make up things and say they were said by their opponent, or label people as a "union apologist" because they are unable to support their argument. I'd say you could be the first to actually make a reasonable argument, but I think that you've already made that impossible for yourself.