know this is going to come as shocking to many of you...... Courtesy of Tech Republic- Chrysler fired 13 workers after Detroit’s WJBK-TV aired footage of them drinking beer and apparently smoking dope during their unpaid lunch breaks (over a period of ten days). (http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/chrysler-auto-workers-busted_20100923_dk) This is one of those situations where you wonder how common this behavior is if these guys were so easily caught on tape. (Note that they were caught despite employing the pinnacle of stealth, the brown paper bag. Seriously, a brown paper bag? If they’d been passing around a fifth of Jim Beam it couldn’t have been as obvious.) A couple of other things to think about: Detroit currently has a sickening rate of unemployment, yet these 13 people were able to secure jobs. Chrysler was the recent recipient of a government bail-out. (Good to know that there’s little accountability going on until there’s a news camera around.) Now the company will probably start doing mandatory drug testing for all employees. Despite Chrysler’s claim that every line position has a backup person, what can we come to expect from the finished product? A cork screw in place of a gear shift?
So they have a backup person for every line position.... 2 people to do one job???? :eek6: Not a person cross trained to do two jobs??? I could never run my business that way.:frown2:
Soooooo if they were cross trained and still getting F'd up on the job you'd be ok with that? :cornut:
So I wonder if management knows about this issue and cross training a person to do two jobs doesn't work because they truly do need two bodies to handle the incapacitated line people. And no, there is no business out there that should have employ this type of work force.
Union rules are crazy. My uncle used to work in Detroit... when a car didn't start at the end of the assembly line, it went into his bay. He could only do as many repairs in an 8 hour shift that a person with 2 years of experience could do. So after 2 hours, he was often done with what work he could do, but couldn't leave the plant until the end of his shift. I heard stories of milling auto parts into various shapes (I had some excellent Delrin golf tees) and baking turkeys and hams in the bumper metal press ovens.
We have a local news guy who takes various agencies to task through investigative reporting. A few months ago he had some footage of Department of Water and Power (a highly over paid and resented utility in Los Angeles) employees buying 24 oz cans of beer before lunch, drinking them in their work vehicles, dumping the empty cans on the street and then driving over to a strip joint for a two hour lunch. A week later he filmed the same crew buying beers and relaxing in lawn chairs at the park and drinking them. Then getting back in their work vehicles, driving to a work site and proceeding to work on power lines. When presented with the video evidence, the response from the management was that they would need to investigate. Say what? Investigate? Must be a union thing. I think it took them couple of month to fire those idiots.
it was common for Subaru guys to find crushed budweiser cans in the frame rails of their cars when taking the bumper skins off. no idea of the beer was consumed during a shift and this was just a joke on the production line at SIA in Indiana but this article doesn't surprise me one bit
Sad thing is I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed that would gladly stay sober through 8 hour shifts to have one of those jobs...... All Hale the Unions!!!
Another way to look at it... a car factory employs a lot of people. Some of them will be substance abusers, union or not. NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse), a department of the NIH, says that about 75% of chronic abusers of alcohol and illicit drugs are employed. So they have union jobs, non-union jobs, are small business owners, have goverment positions etc. Union bashing in this case is an easy target, but I bet that if you hunted around non-union factories, you'd find those that drink or whatever in off hours or at luchtime as well. I think 10%-12% of our nation drinks or uses drugs with great regularity (not sure if that's accurate or not, it's from memory). Chrysler is an easy target because they recieved Government money. Do you honestly think that there are no drunks working at Ford? Or GE? Or Apple? Or HP? Or pretty much any large company? So, to distill what this story is about: An investigative team found that in a large company that there are those that drink or smoke pot at lunchtime. Is this really a surprise to anyone? Is it worth the legs that the story has? Was any effort made to look at this in the context of any other national or local averages or trends? Um... No.... So it's just another example of sensationalist voyerism masquerading as news. Matt
Matt, Your verbal slight of hand does not change the the underlying story. If I, in my non-union job, was found taking a drink and smoking a bowl during my lunch hour, my days of gainful employment would be numbered, if not fractional. But union contracts, and AFL-CIO being one of the more egregious examples, do not make dismissal process easy. Regardless of how warranted it may be. Also, I don't see what relevance your remembered statistics of 10-12% consumption has to this discussion. I regularly consume alcohol. I never do it on the job. Are you saying this should be dismissed and ignored simply because it must be a regular occurrence elsewhere? Let me ask you this. If you hired a baby sitter for your kids and then caught that person taking a couple of tokes and drinking a forty real quick to take the edge off, would you still think it's not a big deal?
No, To be clear, my original comments weren't about defending the actions of those that were fired. Nor was it to debate the merits or lack thereof of unions. It was to point out, that just like most stories, a huge opportunity was missed to illustrate the context of the story, or to inform those that would read it about how this fits into the national trends on substance abuse in the workplace. So we're left with a story that gets headlines (Gov money pays stoner and drunks!) with the context left in the sidelines. That's why I don't like the story. That's why I tried to bring in some numbers that might give some indication that this type of issue (substance abuse in the workplace) is a widespread issue. And if it's a widespread issue, then the fact that Chrysler has the problem isn't really surprising. Matt
Sure! Just don't show them your junk, and the corkscrew is in the drawer by the stove.... did some more digging... It's not just unions that may be barriers to action. This is from this link at about.com.... If you plan to use alcohol and drug testing as a part of a workplace substance abuse policy, there are many legal issues that must first be addressed. Drug testing -- and particularly random drug testing -- is not allowed in every state in the U.S. Before proceeding with such a policy, a company needs to check with its state Department of Labor for current laws. Even if such testing is allowed, and employees are found to be using drugs and alcohol, employers may find their options are limited in how they can respond. For example, the Americans With Disabilities Act makes it clear that an individual with alcoholism has a disability which is protected under the ADA. It also states that an employer may not refuse to hire a qualified individual because of his or her alcoholism, and may not punish an alcoholic employee more severely than non-alcoholic employees for the same conduct. Invasion of Privacy In one federal case, the Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge to a policy that required employees to disclose their prescription drug use at the time of a drug test for illegal drugs. The company said it was necessary to assure the accuracy of the drug test. The court ruled that since the information was not disclosed to others, it represented an "insignificant" invasion of privacy. However, in a California case, the court ruled that an employers's requirement of disclosure of prescription drug use as part of a medical exam for applicants and promotion candidates was illegal. The employer argued the information was necessary to determine if there was a positive test for illegal drugs whether there was a possible legal explanation. The court said the policy violated the American with Disabilities Act and the individual's right to privacy under the California constitution. In New York, the Legal Activities Law prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or dismiss an employee for the use of alcohol and perscription drugs during off-duty hours. Employers may take action under the statute, but only if they have "an established substance abuse or alcohol program or workplace policy." Other Cases Recently, even the right of the U.S. Military to remove an employee from his job due to off-duty behavior has become a matter of dispute for the Merit Systems Protection Board, after a Navy sheet metal worker had a wreck and was arrested for DUI. In another case, a company fired an employee for refusing to take a random drug test, after marijuana was found in his locker. The courts ruled in favor of the employee, because the company's written substance abuse policy did not specifically state that refusing to take the test was grounds for dismissal. The secret to a successful workplace substance abuse policy is to make sure it adheres to the state's laws and is accompanied by a carefully written policy, which is understood by employees and supervisors alike. Such a policy can benefit the company and its employees, but only if it respects the rights of all.
Matt...aren't we drifting into the realm of the Politics and other Messy stuff areas here? Anyway, it comes down the size and attitude of the employer. Those big places have to have all these feel good policies that hinder the removal of someone that really does need be let go. A little place, like say the corner independent gas station can toss the stoner out as they walk back in the door in a fog of dope smoke. The real victim of all this HR stuff is common sense.
Actually if a person has a substance abuse problem that he or she cannot keep out of their work place, I'm all for and encourage employers to try and help those individuals before terminating their employment. Good folks from all walks of life get trapped by substance abuse and these folks are sick. That said an employer has a responsibility to his employees and his customers to ensure these folks are not present when they are empaired and if after trying to help them to a degree, they should have every right to and should terminate their employment. In these cases action must be swift to ensure the safty of the employees, the customers and the overall health of the business itself. Where Unions can become a problem in these instances is when there are so many Union hoops to jump through when taking action that managers at all levels may find it easier to just turn a blind eye to the problem. Avoid all the possible legalities and rules and hope the problem goes away on it's own, which it rarely does and before long you have a situtation such as this at Chrysler. No easy answer here, but Unions do almost over protect their members to a point that a company cannot respond in an efficient manner. Let's not forget to let a person continue on the downward spiral of addiction is doing them or their families any favour. 2cents PS: This problem did not begin at Chrysler because of any government bale out, right or wrong.