Michigan Governor Close To Signing Unpopular Union Busting L

[Reality]

Good old Vred. When bested she becomes hostile and erratic.

[Reality]

"It's simply a long series of misunderstandings when they sent absentee voter applications in Democrat-controlled swing-states instructing voters to return the paperwork two days late, or to the wrong address, or when they repeatedly violate their tax-exempt status."

Got a source for that rwrong?

[O Really]

O'really said "All this union-busting has probably drawn more favorable attention to unions than anything in the last 20 years."

“It’ll create civil war,” Bagwell said." Favorable attention O'Really? Not the "civil war" part specifically, but the all-out attack by Republican legislatures on what many - even many who aren't in unions themselves - believe are hard-earned rights will attract some sympathy from some who hadn't even thought of a union in years.

O'really said in response to Bagwell's comment "Exactly what the Republicans hoped to accomplish." Talk about a wing nut comment and none of this could be the union's fault. Nope, if it's not Bush's fault it's the republican's fault. O'really, in your mind is anything ever a democrat's fault.

A tactic well known and understood by those who have actual experience in labor relations is to create discord among the other side. Companies try to turn employees against the union and against each other in disagreement over the union. Unions try to alienate employees from management. Making members unhappy with fellow employees and creating dissension amongst the ranks is absolutely one of the Republican goals in this witch hunt. If you really think it has anything to do with improving workers "rights", I've got a chemical you can use to turn lead to gold I'll sell you cheap.

SSM said "So destroying someone else's property is just fine with Vrede." You bet SSM. Protest and civil unrest has been her life's work.

[Reality]

So O'really, what's up with the 24 other states that have passed right to work laws and not all are in the anti union South? Do you ever look at what the pubs do as anything other than an attempt to disrupt, destroy, deny, etc.

You must have been one miserable individual during the Gipper, Daddy Bush and Little Bush days.

[O Really]

So O'really, what's up with the 24 other states that have passed right to work laws and not all are in the anti union South? Do you ever look at what the pubs do as anything other than an attempt to disrupt, destroy, deny, etc.

You must have been one miserable individual during the Gipper, Daddy Bush and Little Bush days.

Most if not all passed those laws as an active part of union avoidance, generally in the south and west, but most of them passed when the union membership percentage was low to start with. Union avoidance is one thing; union busting is an entirely different animal.

I'm never miserable. Politics is just politics - my life is a lot more than politics. But I am politically happier with some people than with others. I actually thought Bush the Elder was a pretty good President. I thought he did a good job with his war, and was OK for his time domestically. I generally like McCrory, and - if the Republicans hadn't hi-jacked the entire Legislature - probably would have voted for him over Dalton.

Republicans used to do things other than say "no," disrupt, destroy, deny, etc., but not much lately. If you've got examples of something positive out of them, bring it on.

[rstrong]

"It's simply a long series of misunderstandings when they sent absentee voter applications in Democrat-controlled swing-states instructing voters to return the paperwork two days late, or to the wrong address, or when they repeatedly violate their tax-exempt status."

Got a source for that rwrong?

You can't do a simple wikipedia lookup?

Wikipedia: Americans for Prosperity

In August 2011, AFP "sent absentee voter applications instructing voters to return the paperwork two days late in at least two recall elections." In addition, the PO Box that was listed on the "Ballot Application" is the address of an anti-abortion group, Wisconsin Family Action, as opposed to an official state address.
[...]
In 2011, AFP said that it would review payments it had made to Mark Block's Prosperity USA, which allegedly made improper payments to the Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012. As a tax-exempt charity, Prosperity USA is prohibited from donating money or services to a political campaign.

Read the whole article for a long list of their dishonesty.

We Canadians are most familiar with them for their Shona Holmes "Canadian Health Care Would Have Left Me Dead From Brain Cancer" commercials which got constant airplay on cable 'news' channels, despite the public record showing she never had cancer.

Americans for Prosperity used to be Citizens for a Sound Economy. Besides the usual "global warming and acid rain are myths" propaganda, they were infamous for vote splitting, encouraging George W. Bush supporters to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot in 2004. And signing up as members people who did not know about the organization, by enrolling them as members during unrelated insurance transactions in order to boost membership numbers. The group obtained about $638,000 and 16,000 members through the sale of insurance policies in this way.

[rstrong]

Based on history, here's how it will play out:

rstrong will provide half a page of documentation.
"Reality" will make some snide and irrelevant comment, declare victory, and run away.

Yup. No doubt.

Sorry I didn't get back faster and with more detail, but the apartment building manager called me over to extract some video from the camera system involving a hit and run this morning. Now I'm off to get groceries.

For more details on Americans for Prosperity's union busting, tobacco industry involvement and much, much more, check out the SourceWatch article. (I've only had time to skim it so far.) Be sure to search on "North Carolina."

[Reality]

Chrysler Rehires Drinking, Pot-Smoking Workers

"And for the United Auto Workers, it raises questions about why they are defending workers who, in the public's eye, shouldn't get their jobs back."

Maybe Michigan should pass a "right to fire law"!

http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-r ... d%3D244089

[rstrong]

Chrysler Rehires Drinking, Pot-Smoking Workers

So you think a company should be able to fire someone for having a drink or smoking on their own time, off the premises?

Do YOU call yourself a conservative? You sure don't sound like one.

[Reality]

rstrong, are you still on the "clock" when taking a break?

So you as a self described Canadian conservative approve of workers drinking alcohol and smoking pot during their breaks and then returning to work on automobiles. If so, don't get shook up when you see an airline captain knocking back a few before you board that jumbo.

Yes, I am a US conservative and these workers do not deserve to be rehired.

[rstrong]

rstrong, are you still on the "clock" when taking a break?

What I do on my own time is my own business, not the company's. If I'm still on the premises, then I abide by whatever rules the company has for people on the premises. When I leave the building for lunch, the company has no more say in my personal life than they do when I go home for the evening.

So you as a self described Canadian conservative approve of workers drinking alcohol and smoking pot during their breaks and then returning to work on automobiles.

It's not a matter of approving of it. I don't like the idea, but as an employer I do not and should not have a say in it.

In other words, I want the rules to stay as is. A conservative position.

If so, don't get shook up when you see an airline captain knocking back a few before you board that jumbo.

There you have a serious public safety issue. And so those no drinks before a flight rules are a reasonable condition of employment, before a pilot is hired. This is not the case with auto workers.

Those workers can still be fired for showing up to work obviously impaired. That was not the case with this story; Chrysler only found out because a local TV station filmed them.

Yes, I am a US conservative

You want the laws changed to give corporations far more say in what their employees do on their own personal time, away from the company.

That is many things, but it is not a conservative position.

[Colonel Taylor]

rstrong, are you still on the "clock" when taking a break?

What I do on my own time is my own business, not the company's. If I'm still on the premises, then I abide by whatever rules the company has for people on the premises. When I leave the building for lunch, the company has no more say in my personal life than they do when I go home for the evening.

And if drinking and smoking an ILLEGAL substance then go back to work and try to perform?

I am proud to say I had the opportunity to FIRE one such person in my life. Once right here in Henderson County I watched a job super drag a guy who was stoned off his ass by his ear off the premises. I could not allow this moron who was drunk to put others in harms way because he had a liquid lunch.

So you as a self described Canadian conservative approve of workers drinking alcohol and smoking pot during their breaks and then returning to work on automobiles.

It's not a matter of approving of it. I don't like the idea, but as an employer I do not and should not have a say in it.

In other words, I want the rules to stay as is. A conservative position.

If so, don't get shook up when you see an airline captain knocking back a few before you board that jumbo.

There you have a serious public safety issue. And so those no drinks before a flight rules are a reasonable condition of employment, before a pilot is hired. This is not the case with auto workers.

Those workers can still be fired for showing up to work obviously impaired. That was not the case with this story; Chrysler only found out because a local TV station filmed them.

Yes, I am a US conservative

You want the laws changed to give corporations far more say in what their employees do on their own personal time, away from the company.

That is many things, but it is not a conservative position.

[O Really]

It was the TV station that screwed it up. Here's why. They got a "tip"that these guys were out toking and drinking during lunch. Did they advise the "tipper" to report to management or even to the union rep? Nope, they went out with cameras rolling. During that time, did the TV station report to management and ask/invite them to see for themselves? Nope. They just played their tape on their TV show. By the time management saw the "evidence" it was third party hearsay, not even something you could use - as handled - in an unemployment or workers' comp case. Had they handled it differently, the firings would have stuck.

[rstrong]

And if drinking and smoking an ILLEGAL substance then go back to work and try to perform?

Drinking is not illegal. Pot smoking barely so, and not in some states.

More importantly, it's only hearsay that they were smoking pot. If you're going to fire someone for it you'd better be able to show an arrest for it, let alone a conviction.

(Understand, I've argued this from the other side. A guy who drove trains for a living was insisting that the rail company shouldn't have been able to fire him - after refusing drug counseling - just because he got caught running a grow-op in his home. He freely admitted smoking pot in industrial amounts and said that it wasn't a safety issue. He insisted that even with hard drugs, there's no such thing as addiction. I argued that drug use WAS a safety issue when driving a train, and that the conviction WAS ample proof of his drug use.)

(And BTW, he blames all anti-drug laws and his firing on "liberals.")

Taking the issue to its most extreme, a guy in Toronto was fired a decade ago for robbing a bank on his lunch break. He took it to court. The court sided for him, declaring that until proven guilty of a crime, what he did off-premises on his own time was not the company's concern. (He was later convicted, ending his job.)

I am proud to say I had the opportunity to FIRE one such person in my life. Once right here in Henderson County I watched a job super drag a guy who was stoned off his ass by his ear off the premises. I could not allow this moron who was drunk to put others in harms way because he had a liquid lunch.

That's not the case in this story, is it? The only way the company knew they were drinking and smoking was because of a TV news crew. There's a difference between a drink at lunch and showing up impaired.

The pot issue is messy, and a reason why I don't support legalization.

(I do support decriminalization for small amounts. As in illegal, but like a speeding ticket not a criminal matter. This frees up the courts and doesn't destroy lives. Trafficking would still be a criminal offence.)

I *could* support legalization, but only if it came with rulings already in place on issues like when - being legal to use - it's still a firing offense. (Pilots, school bus drivers etc.) And rulings and technology on testing: Being stuck with needles for random testing should not be part of my job, nor part of rand

[Supsalemgr]

The libs on this thread speak for themselves and their lunacy. Having employees drinking and smoking pot before going into the workplace is obviously a real potential liability issue. Who would get sued if the employer knew this and then another innocent worker got hurt by one of the stoned employees' malfeasance? Geesh!

[O Really]

The libs on this thread speak for themselves and their lunacy. Having employees drinking and smoking pot before going into the workplace is obviously a real potential liability issue. Who would get sued if the employer knew this and then another innocent worker got hurt by one of the stoned employees' malfeasance? Geesh!

Depends. It's a good question, but not one deserving of a derisive "geesh." The company undoubtedly did have a policy against drinking and/or use of illegal drugs at work. They've likely fired somebody for violation. The issue in this case is they didn't know, and didn't catch them, and the information they got was unverified and hearsay. I didn't say they shouldn't have been fired. I said it wasn't sustained in arbitration because of the way the TV station handled it.

On a side note, however, it's interesting how much things change over time. Back in the day, having a beer at lunch wasn't considered a big deal by anyone, and became such only if the employee went back to work smashed.

[Supsalemgr]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/ ... ntributor/

This is not surprising to me. The MSM continues to ruin the reputation of true journalism.

[neoplacebo]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/ ... ntributor/

This is not surprising to me. The MSM continues to ruin the reputation of true journalism.

a link to Foxnews and the word "journalism" in the same sentence

[Reality]

Great thread especially this part of it.

Reveals that those of the liberal ilk have no standards what so ever. Even our resident Canadian conservative doesn't think that an impaired auto worker isn't potentially creating a safety hazzard, to the production line and the potential buyer, and he thinks a worker who is on the clock but "off the line" taking a break can do whatever he/she wants to do and,......all the other lib players agreed.

Even our resdient legal hound is throwing rocks at the TV station. Obviously what these guys were doing, didn't see any females in the video, had been going on for a long time and they either teed off their fellow workers who put the finger on them or trashing their drinking hole got someone's attention. If they felt "what I want to do on my own time is my business" why did they all run like scared rabbiits. It's my time and my business. What's the big deal?

Maybe this also explains why Chrysler builds such a crappy product.

[O Really]

Great thread especially this part of it.

Reveals that those of the liberal ilk have no standards what so ever. Even our resident Canadian conservative doesn't think that an impaired auto worker isn't potentially creating a safety hazzard, to the production line and the potential buyer, and he thinks a worker who is on the clock but "off the line" taking a break can do whatever he/she wants to do and,......all the other lib players agreed.

Even our resdient legal hound is throwing rocks at the TV station. Obviously what these guys were doing, didn't see any females in the video, had been going on for a long time and they either teed off their fellow workers who put the finger on them or trashing their drinking hole got someone's attention. If they felt "what I want to do on my own time is my business" why did they all run like scared rabbiits. It's my time and my business. What's the big deal?

Maybe this also explains why Chrysler builds such a crappy product.

And you have evidence of all that, eh? Nobody, and certainly not I said they didn't deserve to be fired. Nobody said they didn't know they weren't violating company policy, although even if they weren't they can't be blamed for not staying around for a grilling from the TV sleuth. That's not the point. They were fired. The company did what it thought it should. It was the right thing to do. However - big however - the entire situation was not handled well, and they should have known that. The TV station absolutely mucked up the pie. Had they taken their information directly to the management and let them verify and collect evidence properly, the employees would have stayed fired.

BTW, what on earth is there about this issue that's right/left? The company has policies? Is that OK with you? Those policies determine under what grounds an employee may be disciplined/terminated. That OK? The company was blindsided by the TV station with video on TV they had not seen privately. Any disagreement there? That's what the article said. The company made the decision to fire them. Is that OK with you? The terms of their legally binding contract calls for arbitration over disputed terminations. Anything "lib" about that? Even the hardest core conservatives encourage mediation/arbitration as a means of avoiding courtroom litigation. The arbitrator found the evidence insufficient because of being hearsay. You may disagree, but look up "hearsay" and check it. The TV video was not considered to be direct and first hand evidence that would be needed to sustain the termination. Please explain why the TV station's handling of the issue is not at fault.