Chrysler workers fired for drinking back on job

[unokitty]

Autoblog Article


Detroit News Article: Stoned Chrysler unionistas get their jobs back

"The 13 workers were fired in 2010 after local news cameras caught them drinking alcohol and smoking what looks to be marijuana in a park during work hours. Following arbitration, the workers were reinstated."

Another victory for the UAW!

Make anyone feel warm and fuzzy?

Uno

 

[piasabird]

I think most union contracts have a clause in there that under the health care they get Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment. I think everyone deserves a second chance. Maybe they should start bringing drug dogs through the parking lot or something. Make the union pay for some security camers.

 

[alzan]

Autoblog Article


Detroit News Article: Stoned Chrysler unionistas get their jobs back

"The 13 workers were fired in 2010 after local news cameras caught them drinking alcohol and smoking what looks to be marijuana in a park during work hours. Following arbitration, the workers were reinstated."

Another victory for the UAW!

Make anyone feel warm and fuzzy?

Uno

There are abuses in the private sector as well, will Mr. Calabrese write about those too or is he just concerned with slamming the unions and some bad union workers? Oh and "unionistas" is especially pithy, one style point awarded.

Yes it makes me all warm and fuzzy when people point out a problem without any mention of reform. "Unions/union workers bad, private sector good."

You need a refill of your cup of faux outrage.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Is there an article with more info? The Fox hit piece (man Fox is entertaining, are they physically able to be neutral reporting on something?).

I wonder if Chrysler has to follow certain steps before firing someone and they didnt do that.

 

[halik]

RTW can't come fast enough

 

[WackyDan]

I think most union contracts have a clause in there that under the health care they get Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment. I think everyone deserves a second chance. Maybe they should start bringing drug dogs through the parking lot or something. Make the union pay for some security camers.

You deserve a second chance when you are acting solo and have a problem... These guys may have had a problem, but it was more like a social club.

They are supposed to be building quality vehicles... More importantly, they are supposed to be building safe vehicles... their drinking and getting high on the job can potentially affect the future safe operation of the vehicle they are being paid to produce. You want your wife and kids riding in a vehicle these losers built?

 

[WackyDan]

There are abuses in the private sector as well, will Mr. Calabrese write about those too or is he just concerned with slamming the unions and some bad union workers? Oh and "unionistas" is especially pithy, one style point awarded.

Yes it makes me all warm and fuzzy when people point out a problem without any mention of reform. "Unions/union workers bad, private sector good."

You need a refill of your cup of faux outrage.

Abuses yes... And in the private sector I'd wager they STAY fired.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

That depends on what their employment contract says WackyDan, mkay?

 

[trenchfoot]

"Two years ago they were fired - 13 of them - after Detroit's WJBK-TV videotaped them drinking and smoking pot on their lunch breaks, shortly before returning to work to operate heavy machinery. Chrysler fired them in short order, if only because the publicity of WJBK's report made it impossible for them to sweep it under the rug.
Ah, but it's never over until the union weighs in. With little fanfare, a lengthy union arbitration process commenced, and on Friday the arbitrator ruled. The partiers can have their jobs back. WJBK reports once again:"

From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=5936#ixzz2EfTf0kY1



See that part I bolded? The arbitrator decided in favor of the union. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you're attempting to cast dispersions on the union itself. If so, you blamed the wrong party(s) for the result of the "arbitration."

If customary procedures were followed, both management and union negotiate for who the arbitrator would be, so that both union and management agree that the arbitrator would be fair and impartial in their judgements.

Therefore, your alluding to the idea that the union was directly responsible for having the aggrieved employees exhonerated is somewhat misplaced. The union was doing exactly what they were elected to do. If you want to make clear just who was responsible for having those workers return to work, in this specific case, it was management that was the "culprit" here for agreeing to the arbitrator that was used, or the arbitrator him/herself. The union staff representing the workers were simply doing their jobs.

Again, I may be misinterpreting your intentions for posting, and if I'm mistaken, please accept my apology for this.

 

[halik]

See that part I bolded? The arbitrator decided in favor of the union. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you're attempting to cast dispersions on the union itself. If so, you blamed the wrong party(s) for the result of the "arbitration."

If customary procedures were followed, both management and union negotiate for who the arbitrator would be, so that both union and management agree that the arbitrator would be fair and impartial in their judgements.

Therefore, your alluding to the idea that the union was directly responsible for having the agrieved employees exhonerated is somewhat misplaced. The union was doing exactly what they were elected to do. If you want to make clear just who was responsible for having those workers return to work, in this specific case, it was management that was the "culprit" here for agreeing to the arbitrator that was used, or the arbitrator him/herself. The union staff representing the workers were simply doing their jobs.

Again, I may be misinterpreting your intentions for posting, and if I'm mistaken, please accept my apology for this.

Where as in normal world you'd be summarily discharged and that would be the end of that.

Clearly having to arbitrate over this issue with a union representative that is only incentivised to retain as many union employees as possible is a better and more common sense thing to do, right? And people wonder why RTW states are outpacing rust belt in terms of job growth and capEx...

 

[WackyDan]

That depends on what their employment contract says WackyDan, mkay?

Exactly... Not arguing that. Does make that contract some sort of illogical piece of crap that a Union negotiated for though.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Whats illogical about having procedures in place for handling these types of situations?

How do you know it isnt in everyone's best interest for employees to "fix" substance abuse problems and return to work?

 

[Exterous]

Where as in normal world you'd be summarily discharged and that would be the end of that.

Would you? I think your sweeping generalizations are too sweeping. I worked for a company where 4 workers would regularly go get drunk at lunch. Two would often come back and have sales meetings with customers! (And arrive late at that)

Were they fired? Nope. Four months of substance abuse training and they were back on the job

Didn't make any headlines though. Maybe if we had union employees it would?

 

[Paul98]

Glad to hear it.

 

[TeeJay1952]

A mistake was made, a punishment met out and severe penalties were issued. Is that not enough? Do you think they should have been executed? Do people deserve a second chance? Unions do not write contracts, they agree (or disagree) to what the Company offers.

 

[IGBT]

I'll bet they voted for obamaClaus.

 

[halik]

Would you? I think your sweeping generalizations are too sweeping. I worked for a company where 4 workers would regularly go get drunk at lunch. Two would often come back and have sales meetings with customers! (And arrive late at that)

Were they fired? Nope. Four months of substance abuse training and they were back on the job

Didn't make any headlines though. Maybe if we had union employees it would?

Yes, if my job description involves operating heavy machinery I'd be canned on the spot. Huge liability.

The issue here is really that union is only incentivised to protect their numbers (ie dues), so any sort of arbitration or punishment will always be toned down by them. The outcome is that union employees are more prone to fuck around, just because the threat of them losing their jobs is less credible. Simple game theory.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Things like this do not help the Union. No one should be entitled to smoke pot and drink on the job while operating heavy machinery.

There are plenty of non drug using on the job folks who could use the job.

 

[Hugo Drax]

A mistake was made, a punishment met out and severe penalties were issued. Is that not enough? Do you think they should have been executed? Do people deserve a second chance? Unions do not write contracts, they agree (or disagree) to what the Company offers.

No they do not deserve a second chance, I would rather give a chance to new people who could use the job.

They are adults not children, they knew what they were doing is bad. No chances needed.

 

[highland145]

..

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yay!!! Unions promoting and supporting incompetence. No wonder union manufacturing/construction takes so long and make the products so expensive.

 

[waggy]

Things like this do not help the Union. No one should be entitled to smoke pot and drink on the job while operating heavy machinery.

There are plenty of non drug using on the job folks who could use the job.

/this

 

[Matt1970]

Yes, if my job description involves operating heavy machinery I'd be canned on the spot. Huge liability.

The issue here is really that union is only incentivised to protect their numbers (ie dues), so any sort of arbitration or punishment will always be toned down by them. The outcome is that union employees are more prone to fuck around, just because the threat of them losing their jobs is less credible. Simple game theory.

Nothing seems safer than working around heavy machinery with drunk people.

 

[werepossum]

RTW can't come fast enough

RTW is dead, dude. The side that favors RTW is facing a demographics landslide; the side that favors union protection no matter how egregious the behavior is in power and is likely to remain so.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You deserve a second chance when you are acting solo and have a problem... These guys may have had a problem, but it was more like a social club.

They are supposed to be building quality vehicles... More importantly, they are supposed to be building safe vehicles... their drinking and getting high on the job can potentially affect the future safe operation of the vehicle they are being paid to produce. You want your wife and kids riding in a vehicle these losers built?

This has been a contention of mine for awhile now. If these jobs get up to such high paygrades as some here assert they do, paying as much as $70-80k+, then they should hire educated workers to take these positions given the proliferation of young, educated workers out there looking for quality employment.