Chrysler workers at it again

No arguement on the safety factor or the consequences whether treatment or dismissal. Just really don’t see how this is earth shattering news is all, and suspect you can be highly impaired and still operate a lug nut machine.

Mike: that’s why I was a little hesitant to post the article; Fox reported it.

Though I have to wonder how many times they told their supervisor before calling the news station. Though, because they are protected by the union, they get to keep their jobs. Heck, for even more “fun”, I might have followed all the people to lunch, wrote some plate numbers down, then called the police to report a drunk driver as they were getting ready to leave, THEN called the media if nothing happened to the guys who got caught.

OK, so first off, they did get fired in the first story. Second, I advocate one shot at rehab, with back up drug and alcohol testing. I actually work in an industry where there is zero tolerance by the company, which is stricter than the govt. regs.

Um vigilantes got to be careful, so you are advocating that everyone who goes into a tavern for lunch should be stopped and breathalized upon leaving, but those who go to Olive Garden would be OK? No way to tell who had wine with their pasta bowl, and who had diet coke with their burger.

I’m with the life boat guy, if you fail you have one chance at rehab, because the company has a lot of money tied up in your training to this point.

There are some jobs that it may help to drink before doing the job. My wife conned me into singing in our church choir even though I don’t have much of a voice. The director puts me at the end of the row for filler. I drink a couple of bloody marys for breakfast and then sing tight end with the choir.

As long as that CEO who has the martinis during lunch and then makes the big decisions in the afternoon while bombed gets the same axe.

“As long as that CEO who has the martinis during lunch …”

The social acceptability of alcohol consumption has changed dramatically since the 1960s when a 2 martini lunch was SOP.

Here’s an update:

I hope they serve a suitable suspension without pay. If this is their first infraction of this type, I also hope they can go back to work. And this isn’t about getting smoked up during lunch. It’s about safety at the work site. Period.

A friend told me about a Fox News Fair and balanced (required to add the you decide) report about protesters in WI, on the daily show they zoomed in and the alleged thugs had palm trees in the background.
http://m.neontommy.com/news/2011/03/stephen-colbert-mocks-fox-news-misleading-wisconsin-union-protest-video
You decide how reputable is the source

I’m sure this is getting better as time goes by, but if you haven’t worked in this environment and want some insight and entertainment, you should pick up a copy of Ben Hamper’s “Rivethead” Ben was an assembly line worker for GM for many years and wrote based on his experiences.

Waterboy:

Fox News, as you’re referring to it, is the national “news” channel.

The reporters who did this story work for a Fox affiliate - a completely separate, independent entity. They have as many ties to the Fox News channel as they do to MSNBC.

Sounds like they used stock footage because they didn’t have anything real. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Alcohol is banned in Olympic pistol competition because it reduces micro-tremors in the muscles. In other words, it improves performance. Up to a point.

I’m a little skeptical re:the title, “Chrysler Workers at it Again.” It implies (a) that this is something unique to Chrysler, and (b) that this is repeated behavior.

In reality, ALL companies everywhere “have a drug problem.” Any company of appreciable size has employees that abuse alcohol or drugs–what is it, 10% or more of the US population have “substance abuse problems?”

“There was even a case a year or so ago in which an employee reported a half dozen or so specific names to HR of people they claimed they saw doing drugs at a party. These people were told to either submit to drug testing or to resign. None of them work there anymore.”

So…you’re saying that–on the basis of a snitch, with zero evidence, and quite possibly with some sort of axe to grind–6 (or so) people lost their jobs? Please let me know where that was…I could not work under such arbitrary and capricious conditions.

If the “snitch” refused to be identified, the company would not have probable cause for the drug test. If the “snitch” is not anonymous, then the company can order the drug screening and take disciplinary action.

 mark9207, I wouldn't want to work at that company for sure.  People should not be under the influence at work.  However, what they do on their own time is not the company's business.

" People should not be under the influence at work. However, what they do on their own time is not the company’s business. People should not be under the influence at work. However, what they do on their own time is not the company’s business."

Lunch is not their own time. It is a short break from work and it is expected that they will be back at their work station on time and fit to work. They have an obligation to everyone they work with to be sober and able to function without putting themselves or their coworkers at risk due their impaired state.

You’re countering an argument that no one made.

Working for a company (as I do) that mandates drug testing for my position, whatever I do on my own time is my business, unless drugs or some other activity occurs that reflects badly on “the company” or impairs my ability to perform my assigned duties. However, I also signed an agreement when hired that I’d abide by those rules. If there was no agreement, then any case against them is shaky. If you’re not in a position that requires it, you can refuse a drug test, and they have no grounds to fire you.

I don’t have access to the HR paperwork the employees signed, so I can’t make a case either way. Lunch, where either a) you clock out, then back in, or b) where it’s reported as of time on your timecard, is indeed your time. I’ve been in many situations where groups have gone out at lunch, some have had a beer, and then returned to work. Having said that, 1 beer in an hour does not quite a drunk make.

It is very normal in some countries (Germany, Holland, Italy and England when I was living in those), to go out to the local and have a drink with your lunch. I’ve done it, too. I didn’t do it a lot, but only because it made me tired, not because of any impairment.

Times have changed, but some years back if a professor at a public college or university was arrested for driving under the influence, it was grounds for dismissal. It could be argued that if this occured on the professor’s own time and didn’t affect his/her work, then this shouldn’t be allowed. On the other hand, a professor should be a role model for the students.
In my years of teaching, this was never a problem. My salary was too low to buy booze.

A signed agreement is not a requirement for drug testing. The company has to have a written and posted drug testing policy and as long as they adhere to that policy, they can mandate drug testing on any employee.

I did work in HR for awhile, not as an HR person but as a trainer, but I was in the same office area and got to see how a lot of this works. I am not a lawyer either, but I can tell you this, the HR manager has either a company lawyer or a lawyer retained by the company on speed dial and they are not afraid of billable hours. A few billable hours seeking advice are a lot cheaper than a lawsuit.