Chrysler Auto Workers Fired After Being Caught Drinking, Smoking Pot Are Back On Job

[Dave]

This is a prime example of why unions are bad in this day and age. These people should have never gotten their jobs back. With most any type of business I'm betting there are rules that everyone has to follow and those rules would include no drinking or doing drugs during a work day, regardless of if you are on or off site. I know in my job that I can not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs while at work. Sadly, its gotten to the point where regardless of how bad a worker might be or what trouble they might cause, its getting near impossible to fire them. I've heard several times about teachers in NYC that if they are doing bad, are sent to a facility to do whatever (not teach though), continue to be paid and the school district basically can't get rid of them.

Posted: Dec 07, 2012 6:40 PM EST Updated: Dec 07, 2012 7:38 PM EST By Rob Wolchek, FOX 2 News Investigative Reporter

Fox 2 News Headlines

DETROIT (WJBK) -

Two years ago Fox 2 Problem Solver Rob Wolchek got a tip from someone inside Chrysler's  Jefferson North Assembly plant about what some workers were doing at the park on their lunch break.  

For several days our TV crews followed some of these workers.

Play the video above to see what these guys were doing before they went back to work in the factory in 2010.

When we showed the video to executives from Chrysler they were embarrassed.  The company had just been bailed out by the government and president Obama stood on the floor of the very same plant just a few months earlier. Obama said he believed in the workers and that he believed in Chrysler.

Chrysler was trying to remake its image and the activity in video we recorded certainly didn't fit the "Imported from Detroit" campaign.

Chrysler suspended two workers and fired thirteen others.  

Their cases ended up in arbitration and the arbitrator sided with the fired workers. They came back to work this week.

And now this statement from the auto maker:

"Chrysler Group LLC acknowledges the reinstatement of a number of employees  from the Jefferson North assembly plant who were  discharged from the company in September 2010 after  appearing in a local TV station's story about their off-duty conduct."

While the company does not agree with the ultimate decision of the arbitrator, we respect the grievance  procedure process as outlined in the collective bargaining  agreement and our relationship with the UAW.  Unfortunately,  the company was put in a very difficult position because of the way the story was investigated and ultimately revealed to  the public.  These employees from Jefferson North have been off work for more than two years.  The time has come to put  this situation behind us and resume our focus on building quality products that will firmly establish Chrysler Group's  position in the marketplace."

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/20292017/chrysler-auto-workers-fi...

[Willy]

Tiger. What do you mean by "mandatory random drug screening"?

[Progressive Tiger]

I'm talking about the practice in some workplaces of requiring workers to provide urine samples for the purpose of screening for drugs. 

[Willy]

Tiger

That's a sticky question. On one hand an employer should have the right to have workers that are not under the influence of drugs. On the other hand people have the right to privacy. I guess if a person uses drugs they should avoid working for companies that drug test. I personally would refuse to take a test just on  principal. Whether I think testing should be mandatory is irrelevant. A good question would be "should people who are responsible for the safety of others, such as airline pilots, be tested?" My common sense says yes but my principals say no. And your opinion is...

[Progressive Tiger]

My opinion is pretty much the same as yours, Willy. The one point over which we might differ is that if I really needed the job, I'm not sure if I would be as principled as you in refusing the test. 

[Dave]

I'm pretty much the same way.. although if a employer has reason to believe that a person is under the influence of drugs, I believe they have the right to request a drug test in those circumstances. Even where I work I can at any time be asked to take a drug test... I've given them no reason though for them to do so and I don't think they make a habit of asking for one other then when your initially hire in.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Yes - but if drug testing  is not a policy - there are groups that will argue the employer is profiling, when someone is sent for testing (because of some feeling they are under the influence). Under my old employer we had to drug test to hire in, after that we only were drug tested if there was an injury on the job and had to get medical treatment. There were some that would rather lose an arm and work through their shift, than seek medical assistance from workman's comp.

[Jane]

This"On one hand an employer should have the right to have workers that are not under the influence of drugs. On the other hand people have the right to privacy." I can agree with completely, I think like in my pro-choice stance on abortion it is up to each individual what they do with their own body, drugs fall under the same reasoning, my body my choice, the random drug testing fad began as a government control over people, just like we can't own property unless we pay taxes, get permits, etc...As time moves forward their is less and less we can do with out Big Brother/Nanny State permission.

Don't drink/drug and drive, don't go to work high, don't have promiscuous unprotected sex and have multiple abortions because they are not good for oneself, but don't have the government supporting drug testing or abortion because they are telling me what I can do with myself.

Their is a reason we have things the way they are, the crazy shooters at the malls and schools, the generations becoming more anti-authority, it is because big brother has went to far for to long and needs the leash put back on. People will only be stepped on so many times before they lose it.

[Brian Carlson]

Look for the Union Label and do not buy because it may have been made by someone under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

[AQUAMAN]

You're funny Brian. But, on a more serious comment, these people that got reinstated after the multiple infractions caught repeatedly on video don't need to work at Chrysler anymore. It's obvious the Teamsters have power to spare if this can actually happen, and not get reversed by the automaker. Poor example being shown to others in the plant not doing this, let alone our youth across the country. Now people will get the impression that it's being done everywhere, so why not? We can ALL get away with this, right? Btw, I've been on a random USCG testing program as required by law for well over 20 years, and never failed yet. So, this is definitely an insult to my professionalism, as well as millions of others in this type program. We dutifully participate in jobs with this requirement, not because so much we are dictated to by law, but because that's the best way to keep everyone safer, and we love our jobs, and therefore do as we know what is right.

[Brian Carlson]

I have submitted to drug testing my entire adult life. I do not have a problem with it. If Chrysler would drug test with zero tolerance for drugs, they would have a more productive work force. Drugs in the workplace are a danger to the user and everyone around them. And because many of us that work are required to be tested, I believe that anyone receiving public assistance should also be tested. If they think testing is unconstitutional for public assistance then they do not have to be tested, nor will they receive public assistance.

[AQUAMAN]

I've also heard this mentioned of recent Brian, I too think it's a very good idea, but the liberal thinkers will never let it pass mustard. If we think about it seriously, it might just be the answer for many to get off assistance. If they were truly towing the line, sober and drug free, might they not want to get more education and be more involved to find work and participate like most? Another idea that get's little appreciation, just more brain washed rejections, for the sake of feely good emotions, instead of trying to make progress for our society.