-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Chrysler workers fired for drinking back on job
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CitizenKain
Diamond Member
Its funny seeing anti-union people try to pretend this doesn't happen everywhere else with non-union jobs. But that would require honesty to admit that.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
I guarantee you the company for whom I work has a zero tolerance for drug and alcohol use on the job, if caught via drug/alcohol screen or someone smells it on your breath/person you will be immediately terminated.
halik
Lifer
Well it would certainly stop rehiring said people, which is really the point of this thread...
waggy
No Lifer
I know of no place that would bring you back if you were caught getting high and drunk on the job. And if there are places that do it they are just as fucking dumb.
waggy
No Lifer
a office or working with heavy machinery? if a office who cares. heavy machinery? fuck no they should be fired. i don't care if they are union or not. I wouldn't want someone i'm working with high or drunk and putting my life in danger.
The point isn't 'does this happen elsewhere' or 'but white collar workers do stuff like this too'. The point is, when it's discovered, the company should have the leeway to shitcan the employee on the spot. Obviously the UAW and/or Gov isn't letting that happen here, for whatever reason...
Chuck
Chuck
waggy
No Lifer
true. every place should be able to fire someone that puts others at risk. i don't care if you drink or do pot. but no way should you do it during work and if you work with heavy machinery.
frankly i think that's common sense and others would be pissed off if it was happening. the fact people are defending them and not complaining to the union over it rather amazes me. My safety is more important then you getting high on the job.
werepossum
Elite Member
Outside of unions and government, it would take a really, really progressive state to force a company to rehire an assembly line (or otherwise involved in potentially dangerous activity) employee fired for drinking on the job. Frankly I doubt we have a state that progressive.
Personally I'm very much in favor of trade unions, which bring real value to the table for employers as well as employees. Preventing companies from firing workers who drink on the job is not bringing value, it's simply endangering other workers and disadvantaging the company.
Hugo Drax
Diamond Member
It does happen with non union jobs. but they get fired.
agreed. this should be zero tolerance. i have drank on the job before, in construction, and i was completely ready to lose my job. my union wouldnt have supported me coming back either- as they shoudnt.... go UAW 🙄
I honestly can't believe you're defending this....
Anyone, and I mean anyone who gets pegged pulling this shit in the private sector would get canned on the spot and you can bet that they wouldn't get that job back....
Yet here some morans get their jobs back because of union arbitration...ridiculous.
trenchfoot
Lifer
Look, I've been in too many arbs to know that what information was given in the article leaves out too much evidentiary testimony to clearly determine what actually happened at the incident site, in the arb itself and why the arbitrator, who was picked by both Union and Management to be fair and impartial decided in favor of the employees. For all concerned parties, it was a fair and impartial arbitration. I would have been just as satisfied with the arb if it went in favor of management because the process worked itself to a non-contested conclusion, meaning that all parties involved, including management, felt they had a complete and fair hearing and that, as they say, was that.
You talk to any union rep or management team member who attend arbs and all of them will tell you that 99% of arbs are a crap shoot. The call could just as easily have gone management's way and none of this would have been newsworthy, just as I feel what happened with these four employees is also non-newsworthy because these arbitrations happen every day all over the country and judgements are handed down with both sides having their say to the satisfaction of all parties.
Too, there are circumstances that aren't brought up in arbs that do affect the final outcome. For example, the empoyees involved may have been long-time employees with excellent work histories and of whom management deemed as valuable and essential workers. In cases such as this, management wouldn't put up too much of a fight but were compelled to follow the disciplinary procedures per contract language.
Arbitrators are not agreed upon lightly. They are many retired judges who arbitrate. As well, practicing and retired attorneys are also available to arbitrate. Choosing an arbitrator itself is a time consuming process. The whole process of arbitrating a grievance or discipinary action is previously agreed upon via contract negotiations. All of this is put in place to ensure that each side has a fair chance at determining what actions should be taken in any given grievance or disciplinary action.
Just as in municipal/state/federal courts, binding arbitration gives every active participant an equal chance at presenting their case. It really doesn't matter what the outcome is. All that matters is that the process played iteslf out the way it was designed and a decision was made to everyone's satisfaction.
You talk to any union rep or management team member who attend arbs and all of them will tell you that 99% of arbs are a crap shoot. The call could just as easily have gone management's way and none of this would have been newsworthy, just as I feel what happened with these four employees is also non-newsworthy because these arbitrations happen every day all over the country and judgements are handed down with both sides having their say to the satisfaction of all parties.
Too, there are circumstances that aren't brought up in arbs that do affect the final outcome. For example, the empoyees involved may have been long-time employees with excellent work histories and of whom management deemed as valuable and essential workers. In cases such as this, management wouldn't put up too much of a fight but were compelled to follow the disciplinary procedures per contract language.
Arbitrators are not agreed upon lightly. They are many retired judges who arbitrate. As well, practicing and retired attorneys are also available to arbitrate. Choosing an arbitrator itself is a time consuming process. The whole process of arbitrating a grievance or discipinary action is previously agreed upon via contract negotiations. All of this is put in place to ensure that each side has a fair chance at determining what actions should be taken in any given grievance or disciplinary action.
Just as in municipal/state/federal courts, binding arbitration gives every active participant an equal chance at presenting their case. It really doesn't matter what the outcome is. All that matters is that the process played iteslf out the way it was designed and a decision was made to everyone's satisfaction.
My brother practically OD'd on cocaine at TWA (airline, he was a mechanic), and he got like 4 months paid leave for rehab. As soon as the rehab place signed off on him, and he passed a drug test, he went right back to work. They never threatened his $90,000 a year job.
TWA eventually died and got eaten by AA. I guess that's what happens to union companies.
Thank you for pointing out a big problem with the union. Why the heck is the union "protecting" drunk and high workers who obviously should be fired at all? They should have simply agreed with management and said "yep, get those losers outta here". Instead, they fight for the losers and dopers, costing the company money and reducing overall productivity.
The union should not be trying to "protect" people "no matter what". It should be protecting people from unfair treatment or abuse.
In this situation, both Chrysler management and the UAW are big losers.
The global auto industry is awash with capacity. The reality is that many more cars can be produced than consumers want to buy.
It is a highly competitive marketplace. And there are going to be losers. For example, Opel just announced that it is closing a plant in Germany. 3,100 jobs gone. Unlike, Chrysler that has already had one government bailout, there will be no government bailout for Opel.
Events like this 'arbitration' just demonstrate that the UAW doesn't give a damn about the quality of Chrysler Cars. That they see their role as 'sticking it to management." In that, I am confident that they will succeed.
So, if the arbitrators rule, then these screwballs are entitled to have their jobs back.
Just like, consumers are entitled to ignore Chrysler products when they go new car shopping.
Uno
The global auto industry is awash with capacity. The reality is that many more cars can be produced than consumers want to buy.
It is a highly competitive marketplace. And there are going to be losers. For example, Opel just announced that it is closing a plant in Germany. 3,100 jobs gone. Unlike, Chrysler that has already had one government bailout, there will be no government bailout for Opel.
Events like this 'arbitration' just demonstrate that the UAW doesn't give a damn about the quality of Chrysler Cars. That they see their role as 'sticking it to management." In that, I am confident that they will succeed.
So, if the arbitrators rule, then these screwballs are entitled to have their jobs back.
Just like, consumers are entitled to ignore Chrysler products when they go new car shopping.
Uno
quest55720
Golden Member
And people wonder why the push backs against unions. They only have themselves to blame. If they acted reasonably people would not have issues with them. This case is complete BS and sends the message you can do what you want on the job with not get fired. Hell they might as well drink on the assembly line the president has been set can't be fired for being drunk on the job.
marincounty
Diamond Member
Why not hire them back? GW Bush was the first convicted criminal alcoholic elected president, and he got re-elected. We know what great service he did for this country, right?
halik
Lifer
Because they're only incentive is to maintain and increase their ranks; workers fired = less dues. They have no other monetary incentive otherwise (productivity/quality/costs etc)
trenchfoot
Lifer
Should'a-would'a-could'a.
The union is protecting the employees rights the way it did because MANAGEMENT agreed in writing to the fact-finding process that allowed the workers to return to work and the union was obligated by contract to pursue and uphold whatever contract language both management and union agreed to.
It's just that simple, really.
If you have a problem with the outcome of the arbitration, you really need to hold management just as responsible for the outcome as all processess and conditions in the decision-making process are spelled out in detail in the contract language that both management and union agreed to.
It doesn't matter what the outcome was. All that matters is that both management and union agreed to a process they both honored and executed to the best of their abilities in this and any binding arbitration they are required by contract to pursue.
They did their jobs and the judgement was accepted by both. End of story.
edit- I'd like to reiterate that the decison could just as easily went against the employees, as I'm sure has happened in similar cases. However, each case is decided on its own merit. Every grievance and disciplinary action is unique in its circumstances. It's a gamble that both sides take when agreeing to binding arbitration in their contracts.
Last edited:
BlahBlahYouToo
Lifer
In the private sector, you'd be lucky to find a job in the same industry, if you had to explain to the prospective employer why u were let go at the previous place. And it's a guarantee they will ask this question. I was asked every time during the hr interview (for a white collar positions).
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
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
