TexasCHLforum.com

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=SWi6IlmSO_o[/youtube]

but it's ok because the union says they're opposed to it.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... ch-break/1

I think it's just a few bad apples ruining for the rest of them any group will have this. The sad part is that because employees are so well protected by unions it takes National Media coverage to get them fired. The news agency says they were tipped off co-workers. Snitch rules don't apply when you are buzz/high and operating a forklift or metal cutting tools

Seniority is more important than competency to anti-capitalists.

It’s not just a union.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x4166429" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like poor management to me. Why didn’t they catch this long ago?

It doesn’t matter what union you belong to you can be fired for being under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the job and the union can’t do anything about it.

Blame the union for management not doing their job.

I'm sure you could also find examples of govt executives doing the same sort of thing on the tax payer dime.

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 )

Here is a little enlightenment concerning unions and management labor relations.

Management of a company can do random drug and alcohol tests at any time. They can’t drug and alcohol test targeted people unless they have documented reason to believe those people have been drinking or using drugs. Documented reasons to drug or alcohol test targeted people would be: the smell of alcohol on that person’s breath, erratic behavior, or observing that person drinking or using something that appeared to be drugs.

This is so that a supervisor can’t have certain individuals targeted for tests constantly just because he/she doesn’t like them, their politics, or let’s just say they have a CHL and/or likes guns.

A person can be fired for poor performance, drug or alcohol use, or other reasons, but again this must be documented. A supervisor can’t just call a person into the office and say “your performance is poor, you’re fired”.

Again, the management of a company can suspend or fire a person at any time for numerous reasons. A union can’t stop a person from being fired if they deserve it. All they can do is try to make sure people are treated fairly. A union can’t stop a person from being fired even if they don’t deserve it. All the union can do is try to get that person’s job back.

Maybe I have been missing something but I haven’t heard of any business or government agency where management is drug or alcohol tested.

VoiceofReason wrote:Management of a company can do random drug and alcohol tests at any time. They can’t drug and alcohol test targeted people unless they have documented reason to believe those people have been drinking or using drugs. Documented reasons to drug or alcohol test targeted people would be: the smell of alcohol on that person’s breath, erratic behavior, or observing that person drinking or using something that appeared to be drugs.

When my wife was in sourcing for a ~750 employee plant, she secured a bid on bulk quantities of the one-minute oral tests that would have been less than their monthly toilet paper budget. They're not reliable enough to be used as an action criterion (~3% false positives, IIRC) but they are good enough that you could simply test every employee at once, and assign someone to haul the 20-25 positives over to the clinic that handled urine and/or blood tests. Of course, they could never get management to agree to it since the existing "random" testing meant certain managers' relatives' numbers just never came up.

Well, since you quoted DU as a "source" , and as a small business owner myself, I'll see if I can't address some of these things. (BTW, DU is known as the VoiceofUnreason all over the web except for other pretty radical leftist sites such as themselves.)

VoiceofReason wrote:A person can be fired for poor performance, drug or alcohol use, or other reasons, but again this must be documented. A supervisor can’t just call a person into the office and say “your performance is poor, you’re fired”.

So Texas is no longer an "At Will" state? Or are you referring specifically to union shops, and if so, what union, and what shop? You're making some pretty broad-based claims, when each shop's needs are different, its business is different, and not all unions are the same - particularly THIS ONE.

VoiceofReason wrote:Again, the management of a company can suspend or fire a person at any time for numerous reasons. A union can’t stop a person from being fired if they deserve it. All they can do is try to make sure people are treated fairly. A union can’t stop a person from being fired even if they don’t deserve it. All the union can do is try to get that person’s job back.

They can do more than make sure the employee in question is treated fairly. They can make it take weeks or months or longer to fire an employee who should have been dismissed on the spot and deservedly so. In the process, management is treated unfairly.

VoiceofReason wrote:Maybe I have been missing something but I haven’t heard of any business or government agency where management is drug or alcohol tested.

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it so. How much time have you spent in management? When I worked in management in a non-union shop — a newspaper publisher of law journals — management was subject to the same drug testing as the rank and file. And if HR had suspicions, a manager could be targeted for drug testing.

There was once a time when unions served a justifiable purpose — back in the days before the federal and state governments involved themselves too much in employment laws. Unions were the one layer of buffered protection for employees. Nowadays, employers face a triple layer of protection over employees - unions, state laws, and federal laws - each of which demands its share of the pie in telling the owners of a company how they must run their business. To all three entities, state and local government and unions, employers are nothing more than a cash cow that can be squeezed for additional milk at best, and at worst they view employers as pirates who must be punished for their successes. The trouble is, particularly in the current climate under the current administration, nobody except for staunch conservatives is looking out for the interests of employers.

Where does that put me as a business owner and potential employer should my business grow to the point where I can hire people (which is actually not that far off)? Well, unless employers can get the equivalent of union protections, I can promise that I will never provide a permanent, full-time job to anybody, by design. I am the one who put the sweat equity into getting this company started and keeping it running, through some very rough times. I am the one who has sunk an enormous amount of my money into starting a company up. I am the one bringing in the business. 100% of the equity in this business is mine, and mine alone. NO employee has a right to dictate to me what I may or may not do with it - including how I my manage my employees - as long as I break no laws. The moral right to exercise that discretion that rests 100% with me, not some union flack who has no vested interest in my success.

As that Jon Stewart video illustrates, unions that hire minimum wage employees with no benefits for the purpose of protesting against companies that hire minimum wage employees with no benefits, are unions that have lost their moral compass. I don't do business with people who have no moral compass.

I think some underestimate the power of the unions in corrupt states such as Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York.

TAM

I messed up my reply and don't know how to straighten it out.

Disregard this one.

I'm going to bed.

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?

TAM

There are no "union shops" or "closed shops" in Texas. Texas has a "right to work" law meaning you don’t have to belong to the union and pay dues to work for a business that is unionized, but the union is still required by law to represent you.

It is not Texas law that gives employees the right to organize a union. It is federal law.

I would imagine that less than 25% of businesses in Texas have unions. However those businesses whose employees are unionized must negotiate certain working conditions with the union by law. Adverse actions against an employee being one of those things if required in the contract.

I have not been in management but I have belonged to unions the better part of 35 years. I have been a union representative for a work unit and a safety rep for the union over a large area.

I have seen employees fired or suspended without pay “on the spot”. Sometimes the union was successful in getting the employee reinstated (with or without back pay) and sometimes not. I also have seen employees called into a supervisor’s office, told what he/she did or did not do on certain dates and fired. The union representative could only sit there silently, knowing he/she could do nothing because the employee messed up.

I realize all businesses in the country hate unions, along with about 75% of the people in Texas. Approximately another 20% believe that unions are no longer relevant or needed. I also realize there are bad unions but not all unions are bad. There are also bad companies to work for but not all companies are bad.

I have absolutely no sympathy for those people that are fired because a supervisor “suspects them of something”, get laid off with absolutely no notice, get fired when they reach 45 because the company can hire a younger person cheaper (of course the supervisor might have to make up another reason), get fired because they bring up safety hazards, get fired because they have a CHL or own guns, get fired because they have health problems and the company insurance rates will go up, etc.

After all, Unions are no longer needed.

I stand by my statement that the union is being blamed for management not doing their job.

Other sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,434223,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://media.abcnews.com/Blotter/WallSt ... 972&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 9695.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/liveco ... ves_h.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

G26ster wrote: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.