Union gets jobs back for drunk and high workers caught on camera

[JVB]

And people wonder why some of us don't support the unions: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/10/c...inst-automake/

Here you have 13 bad apples getting high and drunk at lunch, going back to work and putting their fellow union workers at risk and they get their jobs back. These are the types of workers that the union is good for. These are the types of guys that would have never been hired back without the union behind them.

Meanwhile, you have some good workers in the union that don't screw up like this, do their job everyday and they get treated the same as these losers do. That's union justice right there - everyone treated the same. Works great if you're a fuck up, but not so much if you're a good worker.

lol UAW lol

[Shollin]

It was a neutral arbitrator who reinstated them.

[JVB]

It was a neutral arbitrator who reinstated them.

No union = no arbitrator to side with the union. The only reason there was an arbitrator is because that was part of the UAW contract. If they worked for a non-union company they could have just been fired as they should have been.

These guys getting their jobs back is a union victory - embrace it. Celebrate the effectiveness of unions! Aren't they great?

[Shollin]

No union = no arbitrator to side with the union. The only reason there was an arbitrator is because that was part of the UAW contract. If they worked for a non-union company they could have just been fired as they should have been.

These guys getting their jobs back is a union victory - embrace it. Celebrate the effectiveness of unions! Aren't they great?

So people should be fired without any chance to file a grievance? An independent arbitrator ruled there wasn't enough evidence to fire them. Embrace it.

[JVB]

So people should be fired without any chance to file a grievance? An independent arbitrator ruled there wasn't enough evidence to fire them. Embrace it.

They were caught on camera drinking and getting high at lunch and their faces were all over national news. The fact that they weren't found responsible says everything we need to say about unions.

When Right To Work passes, thank these guys, thank the arbitrator, but most of all thank the unions. They brought this shit on themselves by protecting fuck ups like these for all these years.

[Shollin]

They were caught on camera drinking and getting high at lunch and their faces were all over national news. The fact that they weren't found responsible says everything we need to say about unions.

When Right To Work passes, thank these guys, thank the arbitrator, but most of all thank the unions. They brought this shit on themselves by protecting fuck ups like these for all these years.

They were caught drinking but they couldn't prove what they were drinking. Again, it was an independent 3rd party arbitrator. Embrace it.

[Wesley Mouch]

These guys will certainly keep paying their dues.

I was involved from the management side on a case where some workers were being treated unfairly by management. The Union got them reinstated. Sometimes, justice is done.

If Unions want to be taken seriously in the future, they could lead and find a way to control substance abuse. As a general rule -- lip service is paid. No serious action is taken.

At least now, if members see this and disagree, they have choices without being compelled against their will to support corrupt unions.

Meanwhile, in other news... employers will continue to move operations wherever possible to places where they are allowed to manage their employees.

[JVB]

They were caught drinking but they couldn't prove what they were drinking. Again, it was an independent 3rd party arbitrator. Embrace it.

They actually videotaped them going in to liquor stores and buying alcohol, then followed them to the park, videotaped them drinking the alcohol they just purchased, and videotaped some of the guys smoking weed. Didn't you watch any of the videos?

Of course I suppose they could have emptied out the alcohol they just purchased onto the floorboards of the car and refilled the bottles with orange juice on the way to the park. And maybe they were actually smoking cigarettes and just acting like they were taking hits on the weed and passing the joints around.

Any reasonable person knows what they saw, and that's why unions are dying. People like you aren't helping their cause by pretending everything is kosher when shit like this happens.

[Shollin]

They actually videotaped them going in to liquor stores and buying alcohol, then followed them to the park, videotaped them drinking the alcohol they just purchased, and videotaped some of the guys smoking weed. Didn't you watch any of the videos?

Of course I suppose thye could have emptied out the alcohol they just purchased onto the floorboards of the car and refilled the bottles with orange juice on the way to the park. And maybe they were actually smoking cigarettes and just acting like they were taking hits no the weed and passing the joints around.

Any reasonable person knows what they saw, and that's why unions are dying. People like you aren't helping their cause by pretending everything is kosher when shit like this happens.

The bottles were in bags which is obviously alcohol but you can't prove what was in the bag. Again, a 3rd party neutral arbitrator ruled there wasn't enough evidence.

By the way, I did know someone who smoked cigarettes like they were joints.

[Motor City Sam]

And in other news, the executives at Hostess are asking the bankruptcy judge to allow them to be paid bonuses of about $2 million dollars in addition to their salaries as they wind down the company they piloted into bankruptcy.

Let's not act like only blue collar union people get off easy for bad behavior.

[JVB]

The bottles were in bags which is obviously alcohol but you can't prove what was in the bag. Again, a 3rd party neutral arbitrator ruled there wasn't enough evidence.

By the way, I did know someone who smoked cigarettes like they were joints.

If I were a union worker I would be upset that these guys put me in danger by coming back from lunch impaired and operating dangerous machinery. The fact that the union got their jobs back would piss me off too because then it sends the message to others that they can get away with it too.

[noggin]

Maybe the fired workers can get the day off to protest in Lansing tomorrow.

[Det_ard]

I sure hope my next car's airbag or brake pads weren't installed by one of these knuckleheads.

[cla1945]

If they were "right to work" employees, there would have been no arbitrator, they are gone, end of story. I don't go along with the union getting these drunks their jobs back, there has to be some ground rules for unions to protect workers but not give them carte blanche to do whatever they want and never fear dismissal.

[detroitsgwenivere]

These guys were fired 2 years ago. That's two years to think about it, and two years to get their shit together. The terms by which they were reinstated [[arbitrational hearing) were dictated by the contract their employer signed. Based on those terms, they are getting their jobs back, so good for them. I don't see what the big effin fuss is about.

Like none of you have ever had a beer at lunch. Please...

[Zacha341]

I would not purchase a Chryler product to take that chance... or bother with the higher theft issue associated with them. No, thank you.

I sure hope my next car's airbag or brake pads weren't installed by one of these knuckleheads.

[Honky Tonk]

I would not purchase a Chryler product to take that chance... or bother with the higher theft issue associated with them. No, thank you.

Those of that owned "American cars" in the 70's & 80's agree with you.

[canuck]

And in other news, the executives at Hostess are asking the bankruptcy judge to allow them to be paid bonuses of about $2 million dollars in addition to their salaries as they wind down the company they piloted into bankruptcy.

Let's not act like only blue collar union people get off easy for bad behavior.

Eggsactly!

In which case said executives dont need an arbitrator but a high-priced attorney. In some cases, if they are working for government, the legal fees will be paid for them by the state, province, city; the same way unions provide counsel for their members, except taxation pays for those in public office.

[the rock]

If these bozos were engaged in the assembly of automobiles, I can see why there are so many recalls.

[detroitbob]

Am I not correct that even with RTW they would be still be covered by the union contract and the arbritation process would also be used as the shop is reprented and all employees can avail themselves of the conditions of said contract. True or False?

[JVB]

Am I not correct that even with RTW they would be still be covered by the union contract and the arbritation process would also be used as the shop is reprented and all employees can avail themselves of the conditions of said contract. True or False?

False. I worked for a company that had UAW and non-union workers. Actually, all shops fall under that category if you count engineers, floor supervisors and other non-unionized jobs, but ours actually had an assembly area where none of the workers were union members either. If you are not a member you do not get union representation.

[TexasT]

False. I worked for a company that had UAW and non-union workers. Actually, all shops fall under that category if you count engineers, floor supervisors and other non-unionized jobs, but ours actually had an assembly area where none of the workers were union members either. If you are not a member you do not get union representation.

That goes against everything I've read...

"Labor unions are required by law to represent all workers in the unit fairly and completely. This includes non-members as well as your union members. It's legally known as the duty of fair representation or DFR."

http://www.seiu.org/a/members/your-r...the-basics.php

"The duty to represent all workers is especially true in the case where a non-member or anti-union worker files a grievance. Personal feelings or the feelings of the membership cannot be allowed to interfere with the processing of that person's grievance."

http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_dfr.html

Perhaps legally you can get around it by forming two different "units"? Dunno.

[JVB]

I believe that refers to prospective members that haven't made their 90 days. You'll never find the union representing workers that are non-union, and the way they get around that provision is by having "closed shops" so that non-union workers that perform any similar jobs not detailed in their collective bargaining agreement have to work in an area that is walled off from the union area. We had to actually build an addition on to our plant to accommodate an assembly line operated entirely by non-union workers.

However, we had hilo drivers that by necessity had to go into union shops to retrieve parts produced by union guys. On the rare occasions that a non-union hilo guy dropped a basket of parts or ran his forks into a wall or anything else that got him reprimanded, he was not represented by the union even though it happened in our union shop which had a classification for hilo drivers.

edit: and perhaps it will be instructive to some to know that just like the union has a contract, the non-union guys had a set of work rules that they agreed to when hiring in. These work rules covered everything from sick days and write-ups to a grievance against management. We were able to run that shop much more efficiently than the unions shops. The non-union shop had lower turnover and slightly higher pay scales for assembly and material handlers. The union had slightly better pay scales for bottom rung skilled trades, although we had several well paid electricians that only worked the non-union shop and they were treated as though they were management and only reported to the plant manager.

It was really a fascinating experience to be able to see both environments and manage in both environments.

[Wheels]

That goes against everything I've read...

"Labor unions are required by law to represent all workers in the unit fairly and completely. This includes non-members as well as your union members. It's legally known as the duty of fair representation or DFR."

http://www.seiu.org/a/members/your-r...the-basics.php

"The duty to represent all workers is especially true in the case where a non-member or anti-union worker files a grievance. Personal feelings or the feelings of the membership cannot be allowed to interfere with the processing of that person's grievance."

http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_dfr.html

Perhaps legally you can get around it by forming two different "units"? Dunno.

Union rights can be negotiated away with contracts set up in advance.
Chrysler built their plant in Dundee under a new contact that allowed them to employ sub- contractors for such things as machine repair, janitorial, food vending, and even a separate final Assembly area that are all employed by outside companies that may or may not be union. This practice has since spread to other plants around the country.

[TexasT]

Got it. Thanks for the explanation.