So in your mind that makes all the workers bad? I know a heck of a lot of other non-union places that has the very same problem. I am thinking they are excused? Way up here we have a drug policy that has cost a couple thier jobs. There is a few that has found a way around it for now. Everyone knows who they are. So it is only a matter of time before they will get caught up in it. But again if you work union it is bad news but if your non-union it is good?
We won't talk about CEOs and their 3 martini lunches.
Corporate CEO's don't work in safety sensitive positions, as do many UAW workers. Do you really want a vehicle built by a lazy, no account, booze addicted, pot head?
I sure don't, and if I ever suspected that I might own one, it could possibly end up in a law suit situation against Chrysler and the UAW.
This is a very big black eye for the union, as well as Chrysler.
So in your mind that makes all the workers bad? I know a heck of a lot of other non-union places that has the very same problem. I am thinking they are excused? Way up here we have a drug policy that has cost a couple thier jobs. There is a few that has found a way around it for now. Everyone knows who they are. So it is only a matter of time before they will get caught up in it. But again if you work union it is bad news but if your non-union it is good?
No, silly...the point is that THESE workers were bailed out with tax dollars...OUR tax dollars. The fact that your company knows who the dopers are...how'd you put it..."Eveyone knows who they are.".... yet it will still be ..."only a matter of time before they will get caught up in it."....in your own words. I don't care if your guys are shootin dope and swinging from the chandeliers...I did not save their jobs and livelihoods with my tax dollars. These UNION morons from UAW....they appear to be used to being the 'top dog'. Maybe the next 'bailout' coming from D.C. can be a mandate to require NON-union workers for Chrysler ? I mean...just to be fair to those guys who know 'righty tighty-lefty loosey' but don't pay union protection...er...dues.....
We won't talk about CEOs and their 3 martini lunches.
more ignorance.....
Nowadays, CEO's are elected by a board of directors or some such senior management cadre. A CEO's job is based on getting more business, maximizing profits, developing emerging markets, and reassuring investors. Social drinking is a part of their world, as is entertaining clients and/or investors, international travel to see to the company's interests, etc. Fact is that any CEO engaging in the stereotypical 'Three Martini Lunch" won't last long at his job, which costs him time from his family, early days...late nights....weekends and holidays. Blue collar ignorance is no excuse for class warfare. So while 'Joe Lunchbox' quaffs his 40oz brewski at lunch with a blunt chaser, most ceo's are buying booze for their investors and drinking seltzer with a twist.
So in your mind that makes all the workers bad? I know a heck of a lot of other non-union places that has the very same problem. I am thinking they are excused? Way up here we have a drug policy that has cost a couple thier jobs. There is a few that has found a way around it for now. Everyone knows who they are. So it is only a matter of time before they will get caught up in it. But again if you work union it is bad news but if your non-union it is good?
You think non-union workers are invited to take their work break to booze it up, and smoke weed on the UAW parking lot or do you have to pay dues for the privilege?
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
Well, the point being made here by Phil is simple enough. No employed worker should drink on the job. At least not if you have a day job. There are rules against it in almost every company saying no to that behavior for many reasons.
All employees should be held to the same standards when it comes to company policy. Starting with the CEO/COO and on down.
That's why everyone caught violating those policies should be forced to face the consequences, not just the rank and file employees.
I also think Bergall is wrong. I know a couple of very successful business people that never drink. They do their business from the office and the board room. Not from the bar. Even business lunches/dinners can be held sans alcohol. It makes more sense to remain sober because you can think more clearly, and make better choices. There are just as many people who do business and don't drink as there are ones that do.
We as a society don't need to condone that behavior. Nor should we accept anything that goes beyond simple drinking. People here rail on politicians that engage in this same system, yet CEOs get a pass? Come on, stop being hypocrites. If it's bad for one, it should be bad for all.
Well, the point being made here by Phil is simple enough. No employed worker should drink on the job. At least not if you have a day job. There are rules against it in almost every company saying no to that behavior for many reasons. Quite true. That just does not necessarily apply to the most senior management, who make the policy.
All employees should be held to the same standards when it comes to company policy. Starting with the CEO/COO and on down. and who's going to tell the CEO he can't do what he needs to do to be successful at his job ?
That's why everyone caught violating those policies should be forced to face the consequences, not just the rank and file employees. well, contrary to common opinion, 'business' is not egalitarian, and it is not a democracy. There are rules for some that do not necessarily apply to others.
I also think Bergall is wrong. I know a couple of very successful business people that never drink. They do their business from the office and the board room. Not from the bar. Even business lunches/dinners can be held sans alcohol. It makes more sense to remain sober because you can think more clearly, and make better choices. There are just as many people who do business and don't drink as there are ones that do. a 'successful business person' is not necessarily a CEO. They need to be social, and if that must include drinking socially with clients, going to the country club, ****tails after 5...it's what they do. Some may wine and dine their clients while avoiding alcohol themselves, others will party with their clients. By your own admission, there's lots who do and lots who don't. Whatever gets the most results is what counts, and that'd be on a client by client basis, and dependent on the type of business being conducted.
We as a society don't need to condone that behavior. Nor should we accept anything that goes beyond simple drinking. People here rail on politicians that engage in this same system, yet CEOs get a pass? Come on, stop being hypocrites. If it's bad for one, it should be bad for all.
no judgements were being made. One particularly dense poster brought up 'ceos' and their 3-martini lunches as if that's a bad thing. THAT was the judgement. All I'm saying is that CEO's are not bound by the same rules, generally speaking, as an assembly line worker. ALso, I do not look down upon people who drink, unless they are sloppy drunks....obviously a CEO won't be one for long if he has 2 drinks and dances on the tables with a lampshade on his head. And basically, as far as I'm concerned, each person decides what's good or bad for himself. So if I decide to invite clients on my boat and serve 'em dinner and drinks, and give them a very nice evening in the interests of securing their accounts (or to keep them from going elsewhere with their money), then that's what it takes. Similarly, if my assembly line workers are drinking and smoking pot during lunch, my liability goes up as the risk of worker injury due to being 'under the influence' goes up. I'll fire them, as they are a risk to my company and my bottom line. Serving drinks to clients is how a large part of private industry conducts business....on a personal level and whatever works, is what's done. Two very different worlds, not necessarily compatible.
Another great union story.
