More Union greatness, they got their bailout so PARTY IT UP!

[G26ster]

Help me out here folks. What exactly did these guys do wrong? Now, except for an occasional brandy to help me sleep, I don't drink. But, is it in the job rules that an employee cannot have a beer at lunch. They were on lunch break - no? If the argument is that work on an assembly line so this is a safety factor, I might agree, but yet I'm reading another thread on this forum where most agree that a beer or two doesn't make one impaired. Just what is the violation here?

Every job I have ever worked at banned drinking during work hours. Of course every job I've had involves machinery that can suck up a human being and spit him out like hamburger.

This also wasn't a beer or 2. These were 40oz bottles plus some were doing shots and smoking weed on top of that. Not to mention that all of this was rapidly consumed in 10 minutes or less instead of spread out over dinner.

I still feel this is a matter of, they had 30 minutes as worker bees, but upper management has leisurely lunches at the "club" and can probably do as they wish in private. I'm not saying these are choir boys, and I don't condone the drinking or the pot, but I feel like there are a lot of folks in "glass houses" throwing stones at them.

[Ameer]

I'm no union guy, that's for sure, but one thing struck me after watching the report for the 3d or 4th time. These workers took their 30 minute lunch break, drove over to the mini-mart for beer, then to the park and drank it, then back to work on time. Now I understand the safety factor here, but I wonder what the Chrysler executives were doing for lunch. Did they possibly drive over to the country club, have a delightful lunch with a few beers or a nice vintage wine? Pretty common, me thinks. Where did the phrase "Two Martini lunch" come from? So, other than the weed thrown in and the obvious safety factor of assembly line work, what did these workers do that many execs don't do on a daily basis? Just sayin' (Flame suit on )

I have a deal for you. You can fly on aircraft where the pilots and A&P mechanics are drunk on the job and the company owner is sober.

[G26ster]

I'm no union guy, that's for sure, but one thing struck me after watching the report for the 3d or 4th time. These workers took their 30 minute lunch break, drove over to the mini-mart for beer, then to the park and drank it, then back to work on time. Now I understand the safety factor here, but I wonder what the Chrysler executives were doing for lunch. Did they possibly drive over to the country club, have a delightful lunch with a few beers or a nice vintage wine? Pretty common, me thinks. Where did the phrase "Two Martini lunch" come from? So, other than the weed thrown in and the obvious safety factor of assembly line work, what did these workers do that many execs don't do on a daily basis? Just sayin' (Flame suit on )

I have a deal for you. You can fly on aircraft where the pilots and A&P mechanics are drunk on the job and the company owner is sober.

Of course I'm not speaking of safety sensitive jobs. I was a pilot for too many years to condone that. I don't have the facts concerning their positions, nor was that brought out in the news story. I was pointing out the hypocrisy expressed by management and others. I don't know if any of these guys has a safety critical job. I don't recall their job descriptions in what I read. All I know is they work "in" an assembly plant. A headline that might say, "Airline employees found drinking," would cause a sensation, as many would automatically assume it was the pilots. What if it turned out to be clerical personnel at lunch? Also, I was pointing out that there are those who say, "a few beers at dinner do not make you impaired" when it comes to other issues (to which I disagree), but your comparison says they were drunk.

My point is that these guys were convicted by the media, and suspended without all the facts, for the same things that go on everywhere, in management too, and have for years. Here's another perspective:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... ullarticle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KD5NRH]

Of course I'm not speaking of safety sensitive jobs. I was a pilot for too many years to condone that. I don't have the facts concerning their positions, nor was that brought out in the news story. I was pointing out the hypocrisy expressed by management and others. I don't know if any of these guys has a safety critical job.

They don't exactly look like draftsmen or data entry clerks, and our policy is that anyone who uses a potentially injurious object, from a hammer to forklift or hoist, is in a safety critical job.

Heck, last time the ambulance was out, it was for a guy operating a pair of wire cutters; he snipped the ties on a bundle of 300+lb chunks of round stock, which then rolled over his foot.

[i8godzilla]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601545,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thirteen plant workers at the Chrysler Jefferson North Assembly plant in Detroit have lost their jobs after a video showing some of them drinking during their lunch break was aired on the Detroit Fox affiliate.

[bdickens]

Help me out here folks. What exactly did these guys do wrong? Now, except for an occasional brandy to help me sleep, I don't drink. But, is it in the job rules that an employee cannot have a beer at lunch. They were on lunch break - no? If the argument is that work on an assembly line so this is a safety factor, I might agree, but yet I'm reading another thread on this forum where most agree that a beer or two doesn't make one impaired. Just what is the violation here?

I've never had ,seen or heard of a job that allows one to "have a beer" during lunch except in Germany where German infants have beer in their baby bottles.

I'm 99.999996% positive that it is not OSHA compliant, either.

[G26ster]

I've never had ,seen or heard of a job that allows one to "have a beer" during lunch except in Germany where German infants have beer in their baby bottles.

I'm 99.999996% positive that it is not OSHA compliant, either.

Well, I'll have to respectfully disagree to this extent:

1. Go to any metropolitan area downtown during lunch and cruise the finer eateries, and count the number of men and woman in "Business Attire" having lunch with a bottle of beer or a draft, or a cocktail on the table.

2. If it's OK for Germans to have a beer during lunch, then we'd better ban all German imports as "potentially" dangerous or poorly made by drunks. Unless, of course the Germans are immune to the effects alcohol. But then again, how many German made products have a poor reputation for quality and safety?

Now once again, I don't condone the drinking by these men because I believe even 1 beer has a detrimental effect on judgment. That puts me in the minority here. But what I also don't condone is what I believe to be a phony sense of "outrage" by the executives, who probably have their "martini" lunches at the club or favorite eatery. I also believe that executives do make decisions that effect safety, only on a much larger scale, and should not be impaired when those decisions are made. Once again - glass houses and stones.

3. As for OSHA, I don't believe OSHA regulates lunch breaks and what may be consumed. However I do not know the official answer to that question.

[VoiceofReason]

I will go a little further. I personally believe those that were drinking and/or smoking pot should have been fired on the spot, or suspended without pay, pending termination.

There are very few jobs that I would want to work next to someone that has had a couple of beers, let alone a joint. He or she is not only a hazard to themselves but they are also a hazard to co-workers.

A couple of beers may not give a person a buzz but it will slow their reflexes however little. A couple of beers may not cause a person to make a mistake but it might keep them from catching a mistake in time to prevent someone from losing their life. Working under the influence of pot (of any amount) is completely crazy.

I did get angry and said some things I wish I hadn’t, but the point I was trying to make is that a union cannot fire anyone. Some people should have been fired but that was the responsibility of the company.

It may be hypocritical of a supervisor to have a couple of drinks at lunch then fire a worker for having a couple of beers with his lunch, but that supervisor doesn’t run the fork lift that is working behind me.

As a matter of fact, I walked off of a job once and quit because a man I was working with was half drunk and the boss wouldn't do anything about it.

I suppose there is enough blame to go around, management, union and employee.

[i8godzilla]

Here we go again..........................

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/lo ... 0110713-dk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tamie]

Buy Japanese.

[VoiceofReason]

Don't they do random alcohol and drug tests? They should.

By the way, no one should have received “bail outs”. No bank, auto manufacturer or anyone. It just postponed what will come.

[KD5NRH]

Don't they do random alcohol and drug tests? They should.

Even non-union employers often have a policy of putting an employee who fails a drug test on paid suspension until a drug awareness class is available and/or pay them full wage for the time they spend at AA meetings. Hardly a deterrent.

[¿Qué?]

Buy Japanese.

That's one solution but if you like the US brands, get one hecho en Mexico or fabrique au Canada.

[LikesShinyThings]

Once GM and Chrysler got "owned" by the federal government (really, that's the way I see it), I decided I would not buy another vehicle from them. Both for the "politics controlling the company" aspect and the "they've already got enough of my money, and I'm not giving them another penny until they pay me back" aspect. There are plenty of other fine auto makers out there to choose from. I vote with my dollars.