61 Responses

  1. morganovich says:

    well, the flip side seems to be this:

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/12/a-really-bad-deal.html

    For example, according to the most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association — the state’s largest labor union — received $122 million and spent $134 million in 2012. They averaged about $800 from each of their 152,000 members.

    According to union documents, “representational activities” (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.

    The union appears to have spent nearly the entirety, or $119 million of their $122 million in dues, just supporting their leadership (and various politicians) in grand style. They actually had to borrow $12 million to do their job of representing their members.

  2. The Unknown One says:

    Several years ago some guy who used to work for (I think) GM in the 70′s and 80′s wrote a book about his experiences on the assembly line back then, and said that guys smoking pot and doing all kinds of slackerly and dangerous things were very commonplace back then.

  3. Citizen B. says:

    Chrysler is in a tough spot with the UAW for many reasons. A big reason is that the United Auto Workers Retiree Medical Trust(VEBA Trust) owns 41.5% of the company.

    The head of the Federal Mediation and Concillation Service is George Cohen. Mr. Cohen was General Counsel for American Federation of Musicians and lead lawyer for the MLB players union. In addition he worked for the NBA and NHL players unions. Mr. Cohen has a reputation for fairness but his background does involve enrichment from unions.

    • Che is dead says:

      “Mr. Cohen has a reputation for fairness …”

      Fairness? You call this ruling fair? To whom? George Cohen is obviously a union hack.

      The UAW is a cancer, slowly killing the very industry that sustains it.

  4. Walt Greenway says:

    Two years is a pretty stiff penalty for drinking and smoking pot on your unpaid lunch. And, no, backpay is not usually awarded in UAW arbitration cases that are won, so each worker lost somewhere around $200,000 in total compensation for the two years. When you look at the non-punishment handed out for bankers and the financial industry for breaking laws that caused the Great Recession (those guys are smart enough to hide in strip bars during their lunch), I think the UAW workers had the wrong representatives.

    That the case was won after going to an impartial arbitrator(s) who has a reputation to be impartial to survive in the business shows me the UAW had a pretty strong case of due process. Those guys and gals are brutal over seeing the rules are followed by BOTH sides (the UAW umpire cases are on the Internet).

    • Che is dead says:

      “When you look at the non-punishment handed out for bankers and the financial industry for breaking laws that caused the Great Recession … blah, blah, blah.” — Walt G

      What laws did these bankers break? When they weren’t being forced by the government to make loans to people that were unable to pay them back, a policy forwarded and supported by the unions, they were writing loans that the government wanted to buy. I know, I know, you have some alternative theory constructed by some leftist think tank. But let me ask you this, isn’t the guy running the scam supposed to make money? If so, why did the banks need to be bailed out?

      Impartial arbitrators? $200,000 to operate a screw gun, drunk or sober? You really are a shill, aren’t you?

      • Walt Greenway says:

        That’s total compensation retirement, health insurance, wages . . . so yeah, about $100,000 a year. First time substance abuse does not usually result in a 2-year discharge (especially if the local police dept did not charge them for breaking any laws). You know with tobacco prices so high, you have to roll your own now.

        Go to any strip club in any town that does not have a union and see who is in there–those guys go back to work after lunch, too. Maybe we need some reporting in there.

        If the arbitrators are found not impartial by the parties or their peers, they won’t have a job. There are lots of arbitrators looking for work.

        Going the ADA route for substance abuse with a good labor lawyer can be a better win than winning the arbitration case because those guys are better at getting backpay. Firing people can be expensive even in a non-union workplace.

        • morganovich says:

          walt-

          i think you are just completely wrong here. get caught drinking and smoking pot during lunch at most jobs and you get flat out fired.

          this is not some “stiff penalty”. it’s a very light one. being hired back at all in such a case is very unusual. only in a closed shop union could such a thing seem “stiff”.

          break a law in finance, banking, trading etc and you get banned from the industry for life. not just that employer, the whole industry.

          your argument about the laws bankers broke seems baseless. just what laws were those? losing money is not illegal. it was FOLLOWING the laws that contributed to the housing bust, not breaking them.

          it’s not like this was a trivial issue. operating heavy equipment while drunk and stoned is flat out dangerous both to the operator, anyone near him/her, and potentially an issue with the quality of product produced.

          is shows horrific judgment.

          a 2 year suspension is a slap on the wrist compared to what would happen if you were caught doing that on a trading desk or a law office.

          • Walt greenway says:

            Morganovich, Chrysler stated for the record this was off-duty conduct, which means unpaid time. Workers are allowed to drink during their unpaid lunch (and before and after work) as long as they do not report to work in an unsafe condition. You cannot discharge an employee for drinking on his or her own time. As far as the pot, Fox followed these guys for ten days so they had lots of time to report the illegal activity to the police. Was it reported? If not, why? If the police did not do anything about the pot when it was reported, why should Chrysler, it did not happen on their property.

            The only reason these auto employees were discharged for drinking during lunch without proof of reporting in an unsafe condition is because of the newscast and that’s not a winnable arbitration case. Drinking during unpaid lunches is legal and accepted in lots of non-union areas because the employer does not want to pay the employee for the lunchtime minutes.

            You might not think financial laws were broken, but 60 Minutes does. Do you respect Fox Detroit more than 60 Minutes? I don’t really want to start down this blame road regardless of your answer.

          • Walt greenway says:

            “a 2 year suspension is a slap on the wrist compared to what would happen if you were caught doing that on a trading desk or a law office.”

            Probably half of our professional people in this area are at the White Horse Tavern downtown or Nathan J’s (a local upscale strip club) on any given day at lunch time (this includes lawyers and bankers).

          • Methinks says:

            You might not think financial laws were broken, but 60 Minutes does.

            Did you say 60 Minutes? ROFLMAO!!!!!

            Neither you nor 60 Minutes know the first damn thing about finance and the laws and regulations that govern the financial industry. If a member of a broker dealer gets 3 DUI’s, they’re banned from the industry for life, unlike your union thugs who get rewarded with a job after a two year vacation.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            as the old saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

            “In 2010, Fox TV in Detroit filmed 13 Chrysler workers from the Jefferson North Assembly plant in Detroit who were repeatedly drinking alcohol and smoking weed during working hours in a park near the plant. As expected, the 13 UAW workers were dismissed for getting high during their shifts”

            i think you are inventing facts not in evidence to try and mitigate this and trying to avoid the key issue: they went to work that afternoon drunk and high.

            they have these guys on video smoking dope and drinking 40′s during work. this is not ambiguous. sure, it was their lunch hour, but that are also on tape returning to work right after drinking and smoking pot.

            the whistleblower was a worker who did not want to be put at risk by them.

            i wholeheartedly agree that if this was at night after a shift and before going home or on a weekend ro whatever, it would be none of the company’s business, but these guys went to work after drinking and using drugs. that is absolutely the company’s business and pretty much any non union shop would have fired them for good and never looked back.

            you’d be fired for good from McDonalds for that. off duty is the wrong standard here. he would be off duty if they did not go back to work. but they then went ON DUTY operating heavy machinery while drunk and high.

            also, we do not know what happened re back pay. C has not commented.

            further, you make this claim about 60 minutes, but provide no facts, no list of crimes, nothing. just how am i supposed to assess that?

            you made the claim. it falls on you to back it up.

            i have been in finance a long time. get caught breaking a law and you are GONE. you lose your licenses. you never work in the industry again. the SEC, FINRA, and the firms themselves are ALL OVER you. this fairy tale of bankers breaking laws with impunity is simply untrue. it is a very heavily policed industry with multiple layers of scrutiny.

            trying to shift the debate to one of “which media do you trust” is just an appeal to authority fallacy. it has no bearing. they all make absurd claims sometimes and get things right during others.

            this fox station got these guys dead to rights. it’s on video, including the walk back to work. tryign to discredit that based on “it’s fox” is not a valid argument.

          • Walt greenway says:

            Methinks: around here 60 Minutes is more respected than Fox Detroit.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            “Methinks: around here 60 Minutes is more respected than Fox Detroit.”

            that is a form of logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

            it’s a meaningless claim.

            it says absolutely nothing about the validity of the claims of fox nor of 60 minutes.

            it’s a baseless way to argue.

            you say “well krugman says X” and i say “well hayek says Y” and then we each claim our guy is smarter and nothing goes anywhere.

          • Che is dead says:

            I guess that when you say that “bankers and the financial industry ” broke laws, you mean these guys:

            The Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuits against six top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, announced last week, are a seminal event.

            For the first time in a government report, the complaint has made it clear that the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) played a major role in creating the demand for low-quality mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis. More importantly, the SEC is saying that Fannie and Freddie—the largest buyers and securitizers of subprime and other low-quality mortgages—hid the size of their purchases from the market. Through these alleged acts of securities fraud, they did not just mislead investors; they deprived analysts, risk managers, rating agencies and even financial regulators of vital data about market risks that could have prevented the crisis.

            The lawsuit necessarily focuses on 2006 and 2007, the years that are still within the statute of limitations. But according to the SEC complaint, the behavior went on for many years: “Since the 1990s, Freddie Mac internally categorized loans as subprime or subprime-like as part of its loan acquisition program,” while its senior officials continued to state publicly that it had little or no exposure to subprime loans — The SEC fingers the government-backed mortgage buyers, not Wall Street greed, WSJ

          • Methinks says:

            I know. If they told you the earth is flat, you plebes would lap it up like hungry dogs.

          • Walt greenway says:

            “that is absolutely the company’s business and pretty much any non union shop would have fired them for good and never looked back.”

            No. I just got back from North Carolina in September; the non-union workers there were walking across the street at lunchtime to the bar in plain sight of the GE administration office’s windows. I assume if they got drunk their supervisors would fire them because they were not hiding it at all. Drinking at bars during lunch is common in the blue-collar professions, union and non-union alike, north and south alike, and the white-shirt professions. I know because I used to drink with all of them. Maybe you all in Utah are teetotalers.

          • Methinks says:

            So, anyway….back to the drunk, braindead thugs in Detroit…..

          • Walt greenway says:

            Methinks: OK. I will stick to my argument that a lot of folks have a beer at lunchtime, and pot smoking is a legal offense punishable by the local police department in a public park. You want to fire my guy? Show me the proof he is drinking ON the job, impaired, or committed a crime on the property (you don’t get fired even for shooting your wife at home).

          • morganovich says:

            “No. I just got back from North Carolina in September; the non-union workers there were walking across the street at lunchtime to the bar in plain sight of the GE administration office’s windows. I assume if they got drunk their supervisors would fire them because they were not hiding it at all. Drinking at bars during lunch is common in the blue-collar professions, union and non-union alike, north and south alike, and the white-shirt professions. I know because I used to drink with all of them. Maybe you all in Utah are teetotalers.”

            this is a completely invalid argument. it begs the question and is based on logical fallacy and a straw man.

            i did not say “no one ever drinks at lunch”. i did not even say that it was not OK for some workers to drink at lunch.

            what i DID say is that if you come to work after drinking and smoking pot and still under the effects of those drugs (and these UAW guys were drinking 40′s and smoking joints, a pretty potent combo) then it is ABSOLUTELY their employer’s business.

            if the employer wants employees to be sober to operate heavy equipment, then that seems pretty reasonable.

            that IS what Chrysler wanted. they wanted to fire these workers. they were prevented from doing so and from setting the standards in their own workplace by the machinations of a labor union.

            i think they should have been allowed to fire them.

            is that really so difficult to understand? that a company ought to be allowed to require what is deems to be basic safety practices around heavy equipment?

          • Walt Greenway says:

            The company stated their case and lost due to lack of evidence. You need proof that the employees were impaired to do their job to provide that evidence for discharge. Something as simple as slurred words to a supervisor or a supervisor seeing an employee staggering when they walk is enough. Being caught drinking on camera during lunch is not evidence. Smoking pot is illegal and the police report should have documemted that for possible discharge (and if there is not one, why?).

            You guys are seriously not trying to tell me only union autoworkers drink beer at lunch are you? I’ve been around way too long for that.

        • morganovich says:

          “You want to fire my guy? Show me the proof he is drinking ON the job, impaired, or committed a crime on the property (you don’t get fired even for shooting your wife at home).”

          walt-

          the video does so. did you even watch it?

          they tape these guys drinking, smoking pot, then walking back to work and going on shift.

          unless you are going to claim that C has no right to demand that workers be sober to operate heavy machinery, then i just do not see what you are getting at here.

          this is clearly just a knee jerk emotional response for you. you are even calling them “MY GUYS” in some sort of solidarity like the blue wall of a police force.

          these guys went to work with heavy machinery right after drinking and getting high.

          if you are going to take the view that that’s OK, then i guess there is no more to say, but this is not some oddball accusation. it’s VIDEO EVIDENCE. hell, it would be admissible in court.

          to claim that C has no right to require workers to come to work sober is just ridiculous.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            I did not see any signs of anyone being drunk, and I have seen a lot of drunk people. I saw guys drinking beer during their unpaid lunch. Many, many people of all professions have a beer at lunch. These guys screwed up because they did not go inside of a bar. There are bars across the street or next door to almost any company anywhere that has any appreciable number of employees working there (that’s location, location in realtor speak)

            I don’t know what to make of the pot smoking. Where were the police? Fox said they followed these guys for 10 days, so the legal aspect of that should have definitely been followed up by local law enforcement. We pay taxes to make that happen. Do we really want employers trying to enforce the law both offsite and off the clock?

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “it’s VIDEO EVIDENCE. hell, it would be admissible in court.”

            I am not aware any charges at all were even filed by the local police dept. Have you got anything to share with us?

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            the facts here are very clear.

            these guys drank alcohol and smoked pot then went to work.

            i do not think anyone (even you) is disputing that.

            the rest of the argument comes down to one simple question:

            does the employer have the right (or even the obligation) to set standards for this and to fire employees that do not meet them.

            it’s clear that you do not think so.

            on what basis can you possibly make that claim?

            the whole point of this piece is that the employer wished to impose a standard and was prevented from doing so.

            your arguments about “proof” are all just obfuscation. there was no “lack of evidence”. you are making that up. on what do you base that claim? there was plenty of evidence. this is about what the level of standards are and who gets to set them.

            if you worked for me and i saw you do things i thought were unsafe at work, i’d fire you. your opinion on proof would be irrelevant. it is only made relevant in this case because the union wields disproportionate power (granted by legal monopoly) and can take the right to determine standards away from the employers.

            that’s the whole meat of this issue.

            maybe they followed union rules here in this mediation and maybe it was even a good faith mediation, but the system in which it occurs is fundamentally unjust.

            a closed shop union system is fundamentally unjust.

            taking away the right of an employer to determine what is dangerous behavior in the workplace (especially around inebriants and heavy machinery) is unjust.

            your arguments about “lots of people drink at lunch” are mostly untrue in my experience, but even if they are are meaningless. lots of people do lots of dangerous and foolish things. that does not justify doing them. lots of people drink and drive. try using that as a defense if you get pulled over. does that make it safe? does that make it a good practice? does it make it somehting you or i ought to accept?

            the premise of your whole argument seems to be that an employer ought not be allowed to set their own standards about being drunk or stoned and operating heavy machinery.

            i simply do not see how one can defend such a claim.

            if you want to run “walt’s drunken machine shop”, i suppose that’s up to you, but if someone else choose to run one where such behavior is not permitted, then that is their choice as well.

            to take it from them by force (even if legally) is unethical.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            The impartial arbitrator ruled for lack of evidence. I’ll let them speak for themselves. They don’t rule on ethics or morality because it is not their job.

            I do not disagree that employees appeared to be doing something illegal, smoking pot, and they appeared to be drinking some beer. The legality of the pot on public property during off-work hours is the police department’s problem, and the offsite beer drinking, if it impaired their work, is legally the supervisor’s job to address. A supervisor can be jailed for letting an unsafe worker work. Apparently, the supervisor did not document actions such as slurred speech or staggering by the employee to the arbitrator’s satisfaction. Trust me, no union representative usually wants his or her case to go to the arbitrator.

            What exactly was the brand of the beer all 13 people drank, and what proof do you have that all 13 drank all of it? What was their blood alcohol content if you don’t have physical proof of impairment? How many were charged for the pot smoking? You can’t assume evidence just from the camera.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “if you worked for me and i saw you do things i thought were unsafe at work, i’d fire you. your opinion on proof would be irrelevant.”

            And if we had a contract both sides had to follow and one did not, we would either settle any problem by ourselves or send it to someone else who would impartially decide based on both the facts supported with evidence and our written agreement. Do you have a problem with written contracts or just labor unions?

          • Efim says:

            OMG Morganovich, how is it possible that you go in circles, write so many words can’t see the simple fact:
            rules are not about not drinking, rules are about being drunk (according to your opponent, at least)? If you know better about the rules, just say so and give a prooflink

      • Max Planck says:

        “What laws did these bankers break? When they weren’t being forced by the government to make loans to people that were unable to pay them back, a policy forwarded and supported by the unions, they were writing loans that the government wanted to buy”

        The bankers acted recklessly without any encouragement from the government, and the convictions for fraud and billions in put backs have been proven in courts of law.

        Those Chrysler workers accomplish more work in a week than Mr. Perry does in a year. And unlike Mr. Perry, have something tangible to show for it.

        • juandos says:

          Those Chrysler workers accomplish more work in a week than Mr. Perry does in a year. And unlike Mr. Perry, have something tangible to show for it“…

          It would be pure karma if you were to get a vehicle one these guys who staggered back from lunch worked on…

          • Ron H. says:

            juandos

            Like they say, don’t buy a car build on Monday or Friday. Now it may be a bad idea to buy a car built on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday as well.

          • juandos says:

            Like they say, don’t buy a car build on Monday or Friday. Now it may be a bad idea to buy a car built on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday as well“…

            Good point ron h

            I wonder how many of these folks would be at the very least nervous if the surgeon that was going to operate on them was slugging down a quart of beer and smoking a phatty for lunch?

          • Ron H. says:

            I wonder how many of these folks would be at the very least nervous if the surgeon that was going to operate on them was slugging down a quart of beer and smoking a phatty for lunch?

            Or was just back to work after two years.

    • Ken says:

      Walt,

      If you let me come over to your house to use your tools regularly, then found out that just before I came over I got drunk and high, would you let me back on your property to use your tools? How would you feel if you were compelled to by the courts? Why can’t Chrysler hire and fire people for whatever reason they want? Are property rights important or aren’t they?

      It seems you want to reduce the rights of people when they form groups to work towards a common goal. What is the difference between you kicking my drunk, high ass off your property and Chrysler kicking the 13 drunk, high UAW members off their property?

      When you look at the non-punishment handed out for bankers and the financial industry for breaking laws that caused the Great Recession

      Which laws, specifically?

      • Moe says:

        If you are in the right group or have enough connections or enough dough – laws are never broken. These union members deserve jail time, like Jon Corzine…’cept everyone here seems to want to give Wall Street a total break – which is fine – just have your wallets out again for the next bailout.

      • Walt greenway says:

        These laws, Ken 60 Minutes

        • Methinks says:

          from the link: “Borgers tells Kroft that the FCIC found evidence of trillions of dollars of fraud and gross negligence, and that in the area of mortgage fraud, he found crimes committed by “mortgage originators, underwriters, banks . . . across the board.” Yet still, no prosecutions . . . so far.”

          If I so much as don’t dot my “i’s” on unimportant procedural crap, I get fined. And I don’t even have any customers. All financial institutions are examined yearly. What laws exactly did they break? Which ones? This “well, there was LOTS and LOTS of unspecified FRAUD, I assure you” crap obviously flies with the average moron, but it doesn’t mean damn thing.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            that’s not even an argument.

            it’s pure farce.

            “i found lots and lots of fraud”.

            really? like what? nothing specific. just a claim with zero evidence. that entire 60 minutes story is a joke. it provides NO EVIDENCE of any kind, just unsubstantiated claims.

            then it goes on to claim “zero prosecutions”. please, all that fraud and not a single plucky prosecutor anywhere decided to go after even one of these vast legions of fraudsters?

            you know why? because the fraud was all ont he part of the borrowers. they lied about income, assets, etc.

            there were supposed to be all these cases about misrepresentation by banks. NONE went to trial. why? because when they looked at the evidence, it was the borrower who lied, not the bank and that was not a politically feasible prosecution (nor necessarily even a lie as “liar loans” are not always a sworn document.)

            even if a loan officer told you how to lie, YOU would be the one doing it. if i tell you how to steal a candy bar and you do it, who is the theif?

            that 60 minutes article is pure political theater and populist muckracking.

            to compare that claim which has not a single piece of actual evidence in it with a video of guys drinking, smoking dope, and then going to work and claiming the former is more credible than the latter is just absurd.

          • Max Planck says:

            “you know why? because the fraud was all ont he part of the borrowers. they lied about income, assets, etc.”

            You don’t what you’re talking about, and I am tired of correcting you puffed up idiots who fancy yourselves financially literate while you know LESS THAN NOTHING.

            Look, putz: it’s not up to the borrower to prove their creditworthiness to the grantor, IT IS UP TO THE GRANTOR TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE BORROWER. That is basic, sandbox, first grade level credit training knowledge. OK? GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

            We’ve had “liar loans” for DECADES for people who had cash businesses, and there were plenty of (Non-Agency) lenders who serviced that part of the business. They weren’t there to put people into foreclosure, but they knew how to verify credit by non-traditional means and they charged higher rates than conforming lenders to cover the additional risk.

            Normal freaking business. Done cleanly without incident FOR YEARS.

            When things went into the shitter was when S&P, perhaps in collusion with bankers like Goldman WHO PAID A HALF A BILLION DOLLAR FINE IN RECOGNITION THAT THEY MISREPRESENTED THE QUALITY OF THE LOANS TO THE “MUPPETS” THEY SOLD THEM TO, flooded the market with all the cash it could handle to buy securitized paper collateralized with this crap.

            B of A has gotten BILLIONS of loans back on their books in put backs from the GSEs and so has Wells.

            The NRSROs are fighting like mad to keep their malfeasance out of court, and that battle goes on today. They should be publically hung in front of the Treasury building for what they did.

            I can forgive you for not following the space as closely as I do, but if you don’t know what you’re talking about will YOU PLEASE STFU ONCE AND FOR ALL?

          • Max Planck says:

            Here’s another one for ya, Morganovich, and this is just today:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-08/indymac-executives-found-liable-for-negligent-loans.html

            Happy?

          • Ron H. says:

            What was that noise?

            Oh, never mind. It’s just Max the Moron talking out of his ass again.

            YAAAWN!

            Nothing to see here.

        • Che is dead says:

          I guess that when you say that “bankers and the financial industry ” broke laws, you mean these guys:

          The Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuits against six top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, announced last week, are a seminal event.

          For the first time in a government report, the complaint has made it clear that the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) played a major role in creating the demand for low-quality mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis. More importantly, the SEC is saying that Fannie and Freddie—the largest buyers and securitizers of subprime and other low-quality mortgages—hid the size of their purchases from the market. Through these alleged acts of securities fraud, they did not just mislead investors; they deprived analysts, risk managers, rating agencies and even financial regulators of vital data about market risks that could have prevented the crisis.

          The lawsuit necessarily focuses on 2006 and 2007, the years that are still within the statute of limitations. But according to the SEC complaint, the behavior went on for many years: “Since the 1990s, Freddie Mac internally categorized loans as subprime or subprime-like as part of its loan acquisition program,” while its senior officials continued to state publicly that it had little or no exposure to subprime loans — The SEC fingers the government-backed mortgage buyers, not Wall Street greed, WSJ

          Nice try.

          • Moe says:

            If your watchdog is more like a lapdog…

            U.S. District Judge Rakoff on the S.E.C.:
            “Here an agency of the United States is saying, in effect, ‘Although we claim that these defendants have done terrible things, they refuse to admit it and we do not propose to prove it, but will simply resort to gagging their right to deny it.’”

            Rakoff also noted that the Department of Justice rarely allows defendants to enter pleas of nolo contendere, by which a defendant accepts conviction on criminal charges without admitting or denying the allegations.

            But at the SEC it is standard practice.

        • Ron H. says:

          But this is about Chrysler workers drinking and smoking pot during working hours, so let’s not try to redirect into a discussion of Wall Street. It will be interesting to see how these things work themselves out in the future now that Michigan is a right to work state.

    • UAW is shit says:

      “Two years is a pretty stiff penalty for drinking and smoking pot on your unpaid lunch” – Walt G

      WTF? That is unpaid lunch *right before going back to work*. That is highly unprofessional and unethical.

  5. Che is dead says:

    Because the Democrats and their union masters care about the kids:

    In the public schools in Detroit, Mich., according to the U.S. Department of Education, only 7 percent of the eighth graders are grade-level proficient or better in reading. …

    Detroit public-school eighth graders do even worse in math than they do in reading, according to the Department of Education. While only 7 percent scored highly enough on the department’s National Assessment of Educational Progress test in 2011 to be rated “proficient” or better in reading, only 4 percent scored highly enough to be rated “proficient” or better in math.

    Statewide in Michigan, only 32 percent of public-school eighth graders scored grade-level proficient or better in reading, and only 31 percent scored grade-level proficient or better in math. …

    Over the past decade, Michigan’s public school have shown no improvement .. — CNS News

    Why would Democrats need the Klan when they’ve got the teacher’s unions?

  6. PeakTrader says:

    If you’re a pot smoker, make sure you work for a union, or you may lose your job to an “immoral” non-union business.

    • Ken says:

      But you would send them to jail because it’s immoral to use drugs.

      • juandos says:

        Do you want to drive a vehicle that was assembled by someone who got loaded at lunch?

        • Methinks says:

          Juandos,

          Alcohol is legal and yet I would fire anyone drunk on the job because, you know, I wouldn’t trust my and my investors’ money to a drunk bastard. Decriminalizing drugs and the consequences of being high on the job are two separate issues. Time and place, dude.

          • juandos says:

            methinks did you notice I did not use the word, drink?

            A burger and a beer for lunch is one thing, a quart and a phatty is quite something else…

  7. stevor says:

    It’s only fair since we have a “president” who has been CAUGHT RED HANDED not doing his job (Benghazi and a lot more). They want to live more like barry does. Maybe they were practicing for a “beer summit” with barry.

  8. MacDaddyWatch says:

    U.A.W. = U Ain’t Workin’

    Just can wait to get behind the wheel of a Jeep going 75 MPH that was put together by a bunch of drunks still stoned on weed.

  9. Paul says:

    Walt,

    “I don’t know what to make of the pot smoking. Where were the police?”

    You don’t know “what to make of it” because you can’t figure out a way to defend “your guys” that were using drugs on the job other than to claim no harm no foul because there isn’t a police report. It’s on video, but it’s all null and void because the cops weren’t summoned. Uh, ok.

    Hey Walt, where you with “your guys” today attacking private property and beating the shit out of people who disagreed with you? Will you find this all inconclusive if assault charges weren’t filed?

    • Paul says:

      *”where” should be “were.”* argh…

    • Walt Greenway says:

      I expect all police to uphold the law everywhere. Pot smokers during lunches over a ten-day period in a public park is a police matter anywhere I have ever been.

      • Paul says:

        “I expect all police to uphold the law everywhere. Pot smokers during lunches over a ten-day period in a public park is a police matter anywhere I have ever been.”

        Yes, that’s really the issue here, isn’t it?

        • Methinks says:

          If a person commits murder and is never arrested by the police, then he’s not a murderer. Got it, Paul. Walt/union logic its finest.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            Methinks, I would not expect the factory or the union to investigate the murder and arrest the suspect: Would you? First-line supervisors are responsible for seeing their workers are not impaired, safe, and prepared to do their jobs.

      • Ron H. says:

        Walt

        While it is usually the police who arrest lawbreakers, anyone has the authority to do it, but no one is under any obligation to do so, and the news crew was under no obligation to report illegal activity to the police.

        Your question must be: “Why weren’t the police ever there?”

        That’s not the issue though, is it Walt?

        As to whether or not the workers were impaired, you would have to wonder what other reason they had for knocking back 40s and smoking dope at lunch?

        As juandos points out: “…a quart and a phatty is quite another matter.”

Leave a Reply

Mobile Theme | Switch To Regular Theme