Aa
Unions doing what they do best
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-back-on-job-against-automake/?icid=maing-grid7|maing5|dl24|sec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D243427
This is part of what I really appreciate about unions....
This is part of what I really appreciate about unions....
Going out to buy a Chrysler today. Gotta support those in the woreplace who want to drink and smoke weed.
I have to go to work today to earn money to buy the goods schmucks like these produce while smoking it up and drinking their lunch.
I'd be more inclined to believe this story if it wasn't being reported by Fox news.
I'm not saying it's entirely fake, although it wouldn't be the first time Fox posted fake news.
Anything from Fox must be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm not saying it's entirely fake, although it wouldn't be the first time Fox posted fake news.
Anything from Fox must be taken with a grain of salt.
Fox isn't the only one reporting this.
I do have to wonder why, every time something like this gets posted the first thing is to blast the source. We already determined a while back, that unbiased news no longer exists, if it ever did, so why can't we take all posts/sources with a grain of salt, and concentrate on the contents of the post whether than the source.
Here are 3 more articles on the subject:
http://www.workforce.com/article/20121210/NEWS01/121219992/arbitrator-reinstates-chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-during#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20121210/NEWS/121219984/arbitrator-reinstates-chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-during#
I'm not familiar with these sources (except Huffington Post), just pointing out that Fox isn't the only one reporting this.
I do have to wonder why, every time something like this gets posted the first thing is to blast the source. We already determined a while back, that unbiased news no longer exists, if it ever did, so why can't we take all posts/sources with a grain of salt, and concentrate on the contents of the post whether than the source.
Here are 3 more articles on the subject:
http://www.workforce.com/article/20121210/NEWS01/121219992/arbitrator-reinstates-chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-during#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20121210/NEWS/121219984/arbitrator-reinstates-chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-during#
I'm not familiar with these sources (except Huffington Post), just pointing out that Fox isn't the only one reporting this.
So playing the devils advocate here, the report said.
We've seen a fair bit of social media discussion regarding the return to work of 13 Chrysler Group LLC employees who were dismissed from their jobs at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit. We took that action after a September 2010 local news report exposed the workers' off-duty conduct.
So what I gather from this is the activity reported was OFF DUTY conduct?
So they were ultimately fired and then arbitration brought them back?
I thought this was a new story, but is simply a continuation of the one from two years ago? I might be a bit more upset if it was new and not simply a rehashing of an old one.
We've seen a fair bit of social media discussion regarding the return to work of 13 Chrysler Group LLC employees who were dismissed from their jobs at the Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit. We took that action after a September 2010 local news report exposed the workers' off-duty conduct.
So what I gather from this is the activity reported was OFF DUTY conduct?
So they were ultimately fired and then arbitration brought them back?
I thought this was a new story, but is simply a continuation of the one from two years ago? I might be a bit more upset if it was new and not simply a rehashing of an old one.
In cases where the union and management cannot agree during the course of the grievance, the typical outcome is arbitration. This allows the decision to be made by a neutral individual who is not affiliated with either the employer or the union. If there is a dispute over the intent of the contract language, the grievance and arbitration procedure enables the intent to be formally decided rather than management interpreting the contract in a way that the union may not necessarily agree with. Arbitration is a much less expensive process than court and does not necessarily require an attorney to present the case. However, the arbitrator's decision may or may not be binding, depending on the negotiated agreement between the parties. If the decision is binding, it formally sets a precedent for future situations.
Duty of Fair Representation
By taking an employee's case through the grievance or arbitration process, the union can prevent claims that they failed in their duty of fair representation. The union has the right to refuse to take a case if it is deemed that the issue lacks sufficient merit to grieve or arbitrate. However, the union may not make an arbitrary decision, refuse to move forward because of personal feelings about the grievant or the cost to the union, or be neglectful and untimely in the processing of a grievance. If a member has a legitimate case, the union must utilize the correct procedures.
Sponsored Links
Read more: What Are the Benefits of Grievances & Arbitration to Unions? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7919832_benefits-grievances-arbitration-unions.html#ixzz2EhUyy9np
So If I am understanding this correctly, an arbitrator is not the union, but a neutral third party used when union and employer cannot agree?
Duty of Fair Representation
By taking an employee's case through the grievance or arbitration process, the union can prevent claims that they failed in their duty of fair representation. The union has the right to refuse to take a case if it is deemed that the issue lacks sufficient merit to grieve or arbitrate. However, the union may not make an arbitrary decision, refuse to move forward because of personal feelings about the grievant or the cost to the union, or be neglectful and untimely in the processing of a grievance. If a member has a legitimate case, the union must utilize the correct procedures.
Sponsored Links
Read more: What Are the Benefits of Grievances & Arbitration to Unions? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7919832_benefits-grievances-arbitration-unions.html#ixzz2EhUyy9np
So If I am understanding this correctly, an arbitrator is not the union, but a neutral third party used when union and employer cannot agree?
Okay, now I'm confused.
If this was off duty, then they should never have been fired.
On duty, is a whole different situation.
I don't care what anyone does when they are off the job~ that is their personal life and none of mine or their employers business.
On the job, they should be sober and focused on their work.
If this was off duty, then they should never have been fired.
On duty, is a whole different situation.
I don't care what anyone does when they are off the job~ that is their personal life and none of mine or their employers business.
On the job, they should be sober and focused on their work.
Those words are out of the press release put out by the employer. If you read the caption of the fox article tho, it was employees caught while on the job. Totally misleading, also misleading that its all about the union, well its not, its about a neutral third party arbitrator making the decision. Again, misleading.
I don't know if you can consider their lunch break "off duty", sure they were not actually on the clock while they were doing what they were doing but they did return directly to work afterwards
Well, Im not considering anything, but the employer said off duty, it went to arbitration and a third party neutral that had nothing to do with union or employer handled it. I guess the charge was not that they were caught drunk on the job or high on the job but that while on their own time was doing these things with no proof of anything else?
Regardless, it was not the union that declared them back to work. is my point.
Regardless, it was not the union that declared them back to work. is my point.
"While the company does not agree with the ultimate decision of the arbitrator, we respect the grievance procedure process as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and our relationship with the UAW. Unfortunately, the company was put in a very difficult position because of the way the story was investigated and ultimately revealed to the public. These employees from Jefferson North have been off work for more than two years. The time has come to put this situation behind us and resume our focus on building quality products that will firmly establish Chrysler Group's position in the marketplace."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html
So what you're saying is this is another example of a story being twisted to support those out there trying to bust the unions ?
http://www.leftlanenews.com/arbitrator-reinstates-chrysler-employees-fired-for-drinking-and-smoking-on-the-job.html
They were filmed drinking and smoking pot on their lunch break. This is just pathetic. The arbitrator got involved after the UNION filed grievances on the behalf of the drinking and pot smoking employees. The arbitrator sided with the union, who was fighting for them to get their jobs (and back pay) back.
This excerpt from Huff Post:
But the United Auto Workers (UAW), the union representing the assembly line employees, filed grievances on behalf of the workers that were fired.
And a third-party arbitrator sided with the union, agreeing that Chrysler had to give the workers back their jobs. They started back at the factory this week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html
PERFECT example of unions protecting terrible employees who blatantly break the rules. The union should never have filed grievances...unions should have a responsibility to uphold the company's policies and contract agreement with the employees as well, even when it isn't favorable for the employees. I'm pretty sure this behavior would have been against company policy.
Just sickening. It's a shame, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have those jobs.
They were filmed drinking and smoking pot on their lunch break. This is just pathetic. The arbitrator got involved after the UNION filed grievances on the behalf of the drinking and pot smoking employees. The arbitrator sided with the union, who was fighting for them to get their jobs (and back pay) back.
This excerpt from Huff Post:
But the United Auto Workers (UAW), the union representing the assembly line employees, filed grievances on behalf of the workers that were fired.
And a third-party arbitrator sided with the union, agreeing that Chrysler had to give the workers back their jobs. They started back at the factory this week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html
PERFECT example of unions protecting terrible employees who blatantly break the rules. The union should never have filed grievances...unions should have a responsibility to uphold the company's policies and contract agreement with the employees as well, even when it isn't favorable for the employees. I'm pretty sure this behavior would have been against company policy.
Just sickening. It's a shame, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have those jobs.
Exactly my point. The company and the union did not make the decision, the employees requested arbitration which is their right under their contract. It was the arbitrator (neutral third party that speaks for neither the company nor the union), that made the decision. What the defining points are that caused them to come to that decision has not been revealed.
So what you're saying is this is another example of a story being twisted to support those out there trying to bust the unions ? .
I don't care how you twist it...the employees were busted red handed doing this on the job, and the unions fought for their jobs, which is completely wrong.
This was done on shift breaks on several days in a row. And they deserve their job back? Really?
I don't care how you twist it...the employees were busted red handed doing this on the job, and the unions fought for their jobs, which is completely wrong.
This was done on shift breaks on several days in a row. And they deserve their job back? Really?
teko...arbitrator or not, there should have never been grievances filed. If those grievances hadn't been filed, the arbitrator would have NEVER gotten involved.
How could anyone support this? The employees were wrong, and the union was wrong for backing them.
SMH.
How could anyone support this? The employees were wrong, and the union was wrong for backing them.
SMH.
No matter what you think about it, they were not on paid time. Evidently they dont get paid for their lunch hour. If the accusation had been, which it was not, that the workers were on the job drunk and high, that would be a different situation entirely. If they were not caught being drunk and high on the job, you cannot merely assume they were because of a third party accusation. In other words you are innocent until proven guilty. What they do on thier own time is a little bit hard to use if they were not on the job at the time, is what Im getting from the article.
Maybe the oilfield should unionize and then we could really have some bad accidents and oil spills due to intoxicated employee's that can't be fired.
I am the first to say legalize MJ and what someone does on their own time is their business but this is dangerous and unacceptable and yes I have fired many who showed on my rig intoxicated
I am the first to say legalize MJ and what someone does on their own time is their business but this is dangerous and unacceptable and yes I have fired many who showed on my rig intoxicated
And as I already said, if they had been caught on the job high or drunk, that would have been a whole different story. How do you know they drank enuff to get drunk or smoked enuff to be high if you didnt catch them on the job. Bottom line legally, they were on their own time and while I totally agree that it is horrible, terrible and all that, the fact still remains that the only thing they could prove was that they drank and smoked on their off duty time and as such cannot be tied to the workplace without proof of wrongdoing while on the job. Legal and moral have two different outcomes.
" If the accusation had been, which it was not, that the workers were on the job drunk and high, that would be a different situation entirely. "
I agree.
Obviously the problem here has more to do with legal speech,i.e. what they should have legally been charged with opposed to what they were charged with.
Apparently this actually doesn't have as much to do with unions as it does with the letter of the law.
I agree.
Obviously the problem here has more to do with legal speech,i.e. what they should have legally been charged with opposed to what they were charged with.
Apparently this actually doesn't have as much to do with unions as it does with the letter of the law.
They were on BREAKS, meaning they directly returned to work.
Sorry, there's just no defending this. Even if it was AFTER work, it MAY have been fightable (but still, not really, due to liability reasons, etc)
How do you know they drank enuff to get drunk or smoked enuff to be high if you didnt catch them on the job. Bottom line legally, they were on their own time
Seriously? In most factory situations (and a lot of other jobs), there is random drug testing that will lead to an immediate termination just for testing +...no matter where or when they consumed the drugs. This was ON the job...break or no break.
They were on a break from work....during the work day. There's no reason intoxication would have to be proven. It's wrong, period. One sip/puff is too much.
I just can't see how you would defend this. It's cut and dry...and the union is ridiculous for protecting those workers. It's pathetic and sad...sends a great message. Now Chyrsler is stuck paying them all back pay, and having to take them back , NO doubt kicking out people who had been in those positions for two years. What about those people?
If this is what a union should do, then I'm, even MORE adamant that they are harmful.
Sorry, there's just no defending this. Even if it was AFTER work, it MAY have been fightable (but still, not really, due to liability reasons, etc)
How do you know they drank enuff to get drunk or smoked enuff to be high if you didnt catch them on the job. Bottom line legally, they were on their own time
Seriously? In most factory situations (and a lot of other jobs), there is random drug testing that will lead to an immediate termination just for testing +...no matter where or when they consumed the drugs. This was ON the job...break or no break.
They were on a break from work....during the work day. There's no reason intoxication would have to be proven. It's wrong, period. One sip/puff is too much.
I just can't see how you would defend this. It's cut and dry...and the union is ridiculous for protecting those workers. It's pathetic and sad...sends a great message. Now Chyrsler is stuck paying them all back pay, and having to take them back , NO doubt kicking out people who had been in those positions for two years. What about those people?
If this is what a union should do, then I'm, even MORE adamant that they are harmful.
I agree.
Obviously the problem here has more to do with legal speech,i.e. what they should have legally been charged with opposed to what they were charged with.
I'm confused. They weren't "charged" with anything. The union filed grievances against their terminations. They should have absolutely been immediately terminated, and the union should have told them..."sorry for your luck...there's nothing to defend".
Trying to get around saying it was a lunch break is insane. Their work day was not over.
Obviously the problem here has more to do with legal speech,i.e. what they should have legally been charged with opposed to what they were charged with.
I'm confused. They weren't "charged" with anything. The union filed grievances against their terminations. They should have absolutely been immediately terminated, and the union should have told them..."sorry for your luck...there's nothing to defend".
Trying to get around saying it was a lunch break is insane. Their work day was not over.
Maybe the oilfield should unionize and then we could really have some bad accidents and oil spills due to intoxicated employee's that can't be fired.
Yeah, really.
I am the first to say legalize MJ and what someone does on their own time is their business but this is dangerous and unacceptable and yes I have fired many who showed on my rig intoxicated .
It is unacceptable. It infuriates me. This is the typical union "protection" I'm intimately familiar with.
Yeah, really.
I am the first to say legalize MJ and what someone does on their own time is their business but this is dangerous and unacceptable and yes I have fired many who showed on my rig intoxicated .
It is unacceptable. It infuriates me. This is the typical union "protection" I'm intimately familiar with.
Not sure who you are addressing but I will repeat,it seems like these guys SHOULD have been charged with being drunk ( and possibly high) on the job.
Apparently they were not.
I don't know much about the law, but I know enough to know that one word can often make the difference in how a court decides, in what is consider legal or not.
Apparently they were not.
I don't know much about the law, but I know enough to know that one word can often make the difference in how a court decides, in what is consider legal or not.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
