You own a factory, employ many workers

[g5000]

meh... assuming your wingnut site is accurate in saying the workers had to be rehired, it doesn't say why. perhaps the company didn't follow it's own procedures? perhaps there was insufficient evidence that the person was impaired?

thanks for the link... but i'm going to say, knowing the fauxrage, rightwingnut brigade and how it works, that there's more to this story.... as there always is.

The UAW opposes drug testing at every turn.

Injury and illness reporting. We must develop an environment that encourages reporting. Injury and illness reports, including near-miss incidents, can be important warning signs of work hazards. We oppose and will seek to eliminate management practices that discourage reporting, including:
Threatening, discriminating against and firing workers who report workplace injuries and illness.

Monetary incentives or other rewards or punishments that are based on reported injuries.

“Behavior-based safety” schemes that focus solely on worker actions and not on hazard identification.

Drug testing and/or discipline triggered solely by an incident report.

Health and Safety | UAW

How ironic that is in their Health and Safety procedures?


.

kind of like the NRA opposes gun regulation, i guess.

but drug testing doesn't tell you if someone is impaired... it tells you if someone has used within x number of days.... and it isn't even consistent in terms of the number of days b/c how long it takes for pot to get out of your system depends on how much you smoked, on your metabolism, on your size... and a lot of other factors.

so why is it your employer's business what you do when you're off work if you're not impaired AT work.

that's why unions oppose drug testing.

Pot is illegal. So your argument fails. If you test positive for an illegal substance, you should be able to be fired.

And these guys were filmed using and drinking and going back to work. So your argument fails again.

Even further, you are speaking out of your ass about the accuracy of drug testing. Drug testing is so accurate they can tell you to the day when a person used.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

kind of like the NRA opposes gun regulation, i guess.

Except for owning a gun is legal..

which doesn't mean ownership shouldn't be subjected to reasonable regulation.

now see the rest of my post...

There is reasonable regulation.. no felons owning weapons, nobody with a history of mental impairment, etc... they just don't support regulation over law abiding citizens on something that is a right granted to the people within the constitution

Drugs are not legal,, federal law does not have pot or coke or whatever legal at any time.. on duty or off.. and if your employee shows a pattern of illegal activity, generally you don't want that person employed in your company

 

[jillian]

The UAW opposes drug testing at every turn.



Health and Safety | UAW

How ironic that is in their Health and Safety procedures?


.

kind of like the NRA opposes gun regulation, i guess.

but drug testing doesn't tell you if someone is impaired... it tells you if someone has used within x number of days.... and it isn't even consistent in terms of the number of days b/c how long it takes for pot to get out of your system depends on how much you smoked, on your metabolism, on your size... and a lot of other factors.

so why is it your employer's business what you do when you're off work if you're not impaired AT work.

that's why unions oppose drug testing.

Pot is illegal. So your argument fails. If you test positive for an illegal substance, you should be able to be fired.

And these guys were filmed using and drinking and going back to work. So your argument fails again.

Even further, you are speaking out of your ass about the accuracy of drug testing. Drug testing is so accurate they can tell you to the day when a person used.

.

again... there's more to the story than the rightwingnut blogosphere says.

it doesn't matter if it's "illegal" that isn't what the o/p claims they were fired for.

as to your last... that's either a lie or you're uninformed.

but thanks for the civil discussion.

and they wonder why i don't bother with the loons. *shrug*

 

[jillian]

Except for owning a gun is legal..

which doesn't mean ownership shouldn't be subjected to reasonable regulation.

now see the rest of my post...

There is reasonable regulation.. no felons owning weapons, nobody with a history of mental impairment, etc... they just don't support regulation over law abiding citizens on something that is a right granted to the people within the constitution

Drugs are not legal,, federal law does not have pot or coke or whatever legal at any time.. on duty or off.. and if your employee shows a pattern of illegal activity, generally you don't want that person employed in your company

ok...dd, if you say so.

 

[DiamondDave]

which doesn't mean ownership shouldn't be subjected to reasonable regulation.

now see the rest of my post...

There is reasonable regulation.. no felons owning weapons, nobody with a history of mental impairment, etc... they just don't support regulation over law abiding citizens on something that is a right granted to the people within the constitution

Drugs are not legal,, federal law does not have pot or coke or whatever legal at any time.. on duty or off.. and if your employee shows a pattern of illegal activity, generally you don't want that person employed in your company

ok...dd, if you say so.

Yes.. I do say that there is gun regulation that the NRA supports.. as stated.. with felons not owning guns, etc....

And yes... drugs are illegal.... and yes, employers tend not to want employees who engage in illegal activity

 

[GoneBezerk]

Drug test isn't required if people are caught on video smoking it and at least 1 of them admits it was pot.

 

[eflatminor]

Well, regardless of what the Leftist here think about not being able to fire stoned factory workers, I won't be buying any Chrysler products anytime soon.

"Dude...cars don't need brakes, they'll stop on good vibes man..."

 

[Paulie]

The UAW opposes drug testing at every turn.



Health and Safety | UAW

How ironic that is in their Health and Safety procedures?


.

kind of like the NRA opposes gun regulation, i guess.

but drug testing doesn't tell you if someone is impaired... it tells you if someone has used within x number of days.... and it isn't even consistent in terms of the number of days b/c how long it takes for pot to get out of your system depends on how much you smoked, on your metabolism, on your size... and a lot of other factors.

so why is it your employer's business what you do when you're off work if you're not impaired AT work.

that's why unions oppose drug testing.

Pot is illegal. So your argument fails. If you test positive for an illegal substance, you should be able to be fired.

And these guys were filmed using and drinking and going back to work. So your argument fails again.

Even further, you are speaking out of your ass about the accuracy of drug testing. Drug testing is so accurate they can tell you to the day when a person used.

.

Depends on what kind of test.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

meh... assuming your wingnut site is accurate in saying the workers had to be rehired, it doesn't say why. perhaps the company didn't follow it's own procedures? perhaps there was insufficient evidence that the person was impaired?

thanks for the link... but i'm going to say, knowing the fauxrage, rightwingnut brigade and how it works, that there's more to this story.... as there always is.

The UAW opposes drug testing at every turn.

Injury and illness reporting. We must develop an environment that encourages reporting. Injury and illness reports, including near-miss incidents, can be important warning signs of work hazards. We oppose and will seek to eliminate management practices that discourage reporting, including:
Threatening, discriminating against and firing workers who report workplace injuries and illness.

Monetary incentives or other rewards or punishments that are based on reported injuries.

“Behavior-based safety” schemes that focus solely on worker actions and not on hazard identification.

Drug testing and/or discipline triggered solely by an incident report.

Health and Safety | UAW

How ironic that is in their Health and Safety procedures?


.

kind of like the NRA opposes gun regulation, i guess.

but drug testing doesn't tell you if someone is impaired... it tells you if someone has used within x number of days.... and it isn't even consistent in terms of the number of days b/c how long it takes for pot to get out of your system depends on how much you smoked, on your metabolism, on your size... and a lot of other factors.

so why is it your employer's business what you do when you're off work if you're not impaired AT work.

that's why unions oppose drug testing.

Next time you get pulled over for drunk driving just tell the cop that the breathalyzer doesn't tell him if you're impaired, just that you drank recently.

I agree with other people here, this incident has driven me away from GM cars for life. I will never trust strapping my kid into a car that was assembled by a drunk stoner.

 

[The Professor]

kind of like the NRA opposes gun regulation, i guess.

Except for owning a gun is legal..

which doesn't mean ownership shouldn't be subjected to reasonable regulation.

now see the rest of my post...

You didn't know that gun ownership is ALREADY subject to reasonable regulation?

You don't read much do you?

I've read your other posts gal and what you really want is to make gun ownership illegal. Period.

But, If you have had a change of heart, please tell me what SPECIFIC additional regulations you would seek in order to enable people to own guns in accordance with the 2nd Amendment. I'm waiting for an answer.

Frankly, your obsession with legal gun ownership leads me to believe that you don't know a damn thing about all the innocent victims of those who own guns illegally. Did you ever hear of criminals, lady? Do you know how they select their victims? They go for the most vulnerable, DUH. If they even think someone is packing heat, they will wait for someone else to attack, got it? If you read a non-liberal newspaper every now and then you would know this.

Let me simplify it for your simple biased brain:

Guns in the hands of law abiding people: GOOD!

Guns in the hands of criminals: BAD!

Problems: Government can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. DUH! I mean, look how successful your Government has been with illegal immigration and in keeping illegal drugs out of this country.

You are nothing but a liberal gun-hating hack, and why don't you just admit it.

 

[zakdavis]

Factories can be dangerous places, so you're obliged to address any potentially hazardous safety issues with speed and efficiency. It's your business, so if someone is hurt, you're on the hook.

Then you discover that several of your employees are drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis on their lunch break. It's a clear breech of the company rules, it presents a tremendous liability hazard, and it's illegal.

So, what would you do? You'd fire them, right?

Not if they were union working for the UAW you wouldn't:

13 employees who were fired for getting drunk and high during lunch filed grievances with the UAW and after legal battle spanning almost two years – an independent arbitrator has ruled that the Chrysler Group must rehire

Chrysler ordered to rehire workers caught drinking, smoking pot during lunch

Anyone remember when unions were all about workplace safety? Remember the slogan "an injury to one is the concern of all."

Ah well, screw worker safety. I can't wait to check out the new Chryslers this year...they ought to be just fantastic...

Had a guy show up to work drunk. Was anything done about it? No. Did anybody report him? No. What happened to the guy? He ended up in the hospital with severe dehydration.

 

[zakdavis]

Unions are criminal organizations. They make it impossible to fire bad workers and when these auto companies need to downsize, they still have to pay the workers 80%-90% of their salary while they do nothing.

Unions have forced auto companies to pay $80 an hour to work on the assembly line. Of course, dumbfuck liberals wonder why GM and other American companies have problems competing with Honda, Kia, etc.

GM is again at the top of their game. Meanwhile, Honda products are getting meh-er and meh-er. Meanwhile, Toyota has a PR problem, and is not doing as good as it was.

FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

 

[Jarlaxle]

meh... assuming your wingnut site is accurate in saying the workers had to be rehired, it doesn't say why. perhaps the company didn't follow it's own procedures? perhaps there was insufficient evidence that the person was impaired?

thanks for the link... but i'm going to say, knowing the fauxrage, rightwingnut brigade and how it works, that there's more to this story.... as there always is.

OK.. here it is from the huffo puffo leftwing site

Chrysler Workers Drinking: Fired Employees Reinstated At Jefferson North Plant In Detroit

Looks like a 'grievance' on how it was made public... still, these fuckers should have been fired.. they were caught on tape doing this.. it could not be much more cut and dry

They were fired based on a video?

You mean..no drug tests?

No drop in performance?

Just a video?

If I were to "video" CEOs on their 2 martini lunches..is that cause for this sort of action as well?

Because..I think not.

Hey, howzabout I have the guy whose lunch consisted of a joint and three cans of beer work alongside YOU on the line, hey? Maybe have him drive a forklift carrying, say, 1000lb palletized engines alongside your work station?

The CEO drinking at lunch isn't going to run over someone with a forklift or drop a car on him!