Chrysler workers fired for drinking back on job

[tweaker2]

You consider smoking dope and drinking while on the clock to be a Union Right?

Think that might be one of the reasons why UAW membership has declined from 1.5 million in '79 to around 400,000 today?

Congratulations again on your Union Victory!

Feel free to go out and buy a Chrysler to celebrate.


Uno

Thanks for taking my commentary out of context to make a point. My point is, for the millionth time, both parties (Management and Union) are beholden to a contract that both of them agreed to honor and uphold. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is the letter of the bargaining agreement that both parties signed off on.

I'm not favoring Union over Management as you have accused me of. I'm simply stating the facts of the matter.

For you to address this issue as black or white makes you appear rather short-sighted or uninformed.

Based on my well-worn (worn-out actually) experience as a union business agent in handling grievances and arbitrations where unions are invloved, along with over ten years of being in management and handling filings with the local Labor Board in non-union complaints, all I've done is contribute what factual information I have on hand to the discussion on this topic.

Personally, I can work in either kind of environment (unionized or not). I let my performance on the job speak for itself. If my work is not appreciated or needed I find some other place that does and help them compete against the place I came from to ensure my job security, either unionized, or not.

What I will not do is stand idly by and bitch and moan and complain about some manager I work for or employee under my charge and have it go on and on and on. It's why I got into management on the one hand and becoming a union business agent on the other. Both sides have issues that need addressing all the time. Creating a harmonious well functioning working environment is the goal. There is a point of balance between management and employee that creates profit on one side and job satisfaction on the other. All I ever tried to do was promote this balance whether I was in management or representing employees via the union.

 

[unokitty]

I'm not favoring Union over Management as you have accused me of. I'm simply stating the facts of the matter.QUOTE]


We disagree. In specific, I objected to your reference to smoking dope and drinking while on the clock as a union right.

Decisions like this arbitration decision are bad for Chrysler and bad for the UAW. They are bad because they contribute to a consumer loss of faith in both Chrysler and the UAW.

If consumers stop buying Chryslers, then your contract is meaningless.

Think that there is a reason that the UAW has failed to unionize the American Honda, Nissan, BMW, and MB plants?

I would put forth the proposition that crap like the arbitration decision that we are discussing is part of that reason.

You are free to support the UAW worker 'right' of smoking dope and drinking while on the clock.

And you are free to think that that is not favoring union over management.

As I said, we disagree.

I think that you are arguing about the placement, as called for in the contract, of deck chairs on the Titanic.

I think that if the ship is taking on water, then the placement of the deck chairs, as called for in the contract, is of lessor importance.


Uno

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

What I want to know is why the drunk and high union members weren't barred from union membership immediately and permanently?
Why would UAW want to keep such company around?

 

[halik]

What I want to know is why the drunk and high union members weren't barred from union membership immediately and permanently?
Why would UAW want to keep such company around?

They pay dues. It's like asking why Republicans cater to far right loony holy rollers or why democrats bend over backwards for illegals.

 

[tweaker2]

We disagree. In specific, I objected to your reference to smoking dope and drinking while on the clock as a union right.

I have NOT in any of my commentary in this thread, stated or alluded to the idea that smoking dope and drinking while on the clock is a union right. That is utterly ridiculous for any person to feel that way. Please, by all means at your disposal quote me where you think I mentioned that so I can attempt to clarify to you what I meant.

You are free to support the UAW worker 'right' of smoking dope and drinking while on the clock.

There you go again. I never said that and I'm wondering how ever got that idea?

As I said, we disagree.

You're disagreeing to something I never said.

I think that if the ship is taking on water, then the placement of the deck chairs, as called for in the contract, is of lessor importance.

Finally, something I can sink my teeth into. In a very narrowly defined way specific to your analogy, I can agree with what you're saying. However, in the overall context of your argument in response to my post, you're not addressing the gist of my intent, which is, for the last time: Management and Union agreed to contract language that led to those four employees being returned to work. You have no idea of the particulars that led to that decision, therefore, you have no leg to stand on in arguing that they should have been fired. Unlike you, I expressly excluded myself from favoring one side or the other in my commentary, yet you insist that I did. As I've stated previously, I could care less which side won.

Again, All I was attempting to do in my posts was to offer up some knowledge on my part as to the mechanics of the arb process and give a possible scenario that could have influenced the outcome of the arbitration process in favor of the employees.

I took a completely neutral stance in response to your arguing against the decision favoring the employees.

I even went through the trouble of explaining my personal feelings in support of my position, of which you've somehow dismissed offhand to argue your point.

 

[unokitty]

Thanks for taking my commentary out of context to make a point..

From your perspective your commentary was taken "out of context".

I disagree. From my perspective your commentary lacked precision.

If we had a contract, perhaps we could submit this to arbitration?

But since we don't, I'm okay with the status quo.

Everyone can read your words and everyone can read my words.

As I said, I'm okay with that...

But I'm still not going to be buying any Chryslers anytime soon...

Uno