Union workers who make parts for military vehicles caught smoking pot and drinking

[SonicBlue03]

Bill is pointing out that the people that put their lives on the line daily in defense of your freedoms, are being supplied equipment that is assembled by people impaired by recreational drugs.
And the possibility that their union may be protecting them and their job security.

After your speculation I highlighted above, do you really think denigrating Rufus is you best tactic in this debate?
Wow! Talk about ad-hominem attacks!

I realize that there are many dope smokers here, and that many of you feel that pot use is perfectly safe.
Considering that I spent many years and dollars on the same recreation, I would disagree heatedly.*
But despite that, if you can't see what is wrong with working impaired, you're too far gone.
Working impaired in certain industries/jobs is even worse.

Aircraft/aerospace and military/defense contractors need workers with full-faculty abilities and judgement 100% of the time.
Anyone that disagrees with that has little or no sense of responsibility to their job, or the product that they produce, or the poor schmuck in the field that has to use that product.
And their life depends on it.



*But that's just my perspective after getting away from it. When you get away from it, then you can argue with me. Because until you do, you're looking at it from an impaired position.

There was no debate with rufus. He wasn't responding to what I wrote; rather what he interpreted what I wrote - which is consistent with quite a bit of what he puts out there, which indicates either a lack of understanding of initial thoughts or an unwillingness to take the time to understand what was written beforehand.

O'Reilly is just another flavor of Glenn Beck, although he's not stepped in it as much because he was smart enough to stick to his selling message of, "if you don't support this, you hate the troops and hate AMERICA!" If Jon Stewart tried to pass his show off as news, he'd be in the same category as the people he frequently criticizes albeit a different perspective.

That said, my point still stands until you can show me that there's an increase in defective equipment being deployed from this plant in particular, or plants in general that have been shown to have high drug use. It's a non-issue unless the equipment failure from this particular plant shows to be higher than others. I'm not going to demonize these people until someone can show that they've put people at risk through data. Saying that it's "because it's for the troops" doesn't work, because you're valuing someone's life over another based on a career decision. It should either horrify you because people are building things others use while high or not.

The Union is doing what Unions do - it protects its interests by protecting its constituents. No different than any other organization or business. As far as drug use, that happens in Union and non-Union shops - most people would be horrified if they knew just how many of their goods and services they consume that are processed by active users. If we knew how many people under the influence of chemicals were in the workplace, do you think it would change decisions most people make, such as driving cars or getting in airplanes?

I guess I can argue with you about it since I've never had to "get away from it" because I never went there in the first place. Never made a lot of sense to me until the past few years when I've seen friends with cancer use it for pain and diet management. After seeing what they've gone through and how it has helped them cope and function in the world I tend to think we overreact without proper research on the topic.

 

[rufus]

You didn't, but having read a few of your previous posts that's not really surprising.

Typical response, about what I expected actually. It just confirms my previous point.

What you wrote is exactly what I was responding to, you just cannot see how someone with a different perspective might view your own words. Not my problem.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Typical response, about what I expected actually. It just confirms my previous point.

What you wrote is exactly what I was responding to, you just cannot see how someone with a different perspective might view your own words. Not my problem.

Reading comprehension or logical leaps are your problem. You took:

"If the latter, then he should be able to show a corresponding decline the equipment quality from that particular plant, otherwise this is still not news" as "are okay with people drinking and doing drugs at work while they make safety equipment for our military."

So it would appear you made the leap from my statement to mean, "it's perfectly okay for us to turn out substandard equipment for military use." Let's think about that for a second. The assumption is that U.S. military are fighting on constantly failing equipment, or equipment failed at critical times. And that equipment is either coming from this particular plant or an increase of failures is coming from this plant - somehow magically bypassing the government inspection and approval of this equipment (which I'd think would be a whole different topic, right?) So the question - did O'Reilly's revelation show that plant producing a higher rate of failure than others? Lower? The same? What does the data say?

As an aside, it's both funny/scary how many people would appear to subscribe to the tenants of Starship Troopers and who may in fact not have even actually read the novel. And not the good parts of the book, either (which it is a good book - if people here haven't read it, it's a worthwhile investment in time.)

 

[iusmc2002]

There was no debate with rufus. He wasn't responding to what I wrote; rather what he interpreted what I wrote - which is consistent with quite a bit of what he puts out there, which indicates either a lack of understanding of initial thoughts or an unwillingness to take the time to understand what was written beforehand.

O'Reilly is just another flavor of Glenn Beck, although he's not stepped in it as much because he was smart enough to stick to his selling message of, "if you don't support this, you hate the troops and hate AMERICA!" If Jon Stewart tried to pass his show off as news, he'd be in the same category as the people he frequently criticizes albeit a different perspective.

That said, my point still stands until you can show me that there's an increase in defective equipment being deployed from this plant in particular, or plants in general that have been shown to have high drug use. It's a non-issue unless the equipment failure from this particular plant shows to be higher than others. I'm not going to demonize these people until someone can show that they've put people at risk through data. Saying that it's "because it's for the troops" doesn't work, because you're valuing someone's life over another based on a career decision. It should either horrify you because people are building things others use while high or not.

The Union is doing what Unions do - it protects its interests by protecting its constituents. No different than any other organization or business. As far as drug use, that happens in Union and non-Union shops - most people would be horrified if they knew just how many of their goods and services they consume that are processed by active users. If we knew how many people under the influence of chemicals were in the workplace, do you think it would change decisions most people make, such as driving cars or getting in airplanes?

I guess I can argue with you about it since I've never had to "get away from it" because I never went there in the first place. Never made a lot of sense to me until the past few years when I've seen friends with cancer use it for pain and diet management. After seeing what they've gone through and how it has helped them cope and function in the world I tend to think we overreact without proper research on the topic.

You can go bubblegum yourself. "Lets not jump to a conclusion until the war is over, and we have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that these stoners made substandard equipment. What's that? Preventative measures? Naw, we don't need those. We need EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE before I make MY decision." bubblegum your decision. NOONE GIVES A bubblegum about YOUR decision or opinion. Seriously, get bent. "Its ok if the planes fall out of the sky until we have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of substandard products for that company"

You're just a clown. Don't watch O'Rielly? Then don't comment on his bubblegum

 

[SonicBlue03]

You can go bubblegum yourself. "Lets not jump to a conclusion until the war is over, and we have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that these stoners made substandard equipment. What's that? Preventative measures? Naw, we don't need those. We need EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE before I make MY decision." bubblegum your decision. NOONE GIVES A bubblegum about YOUR decision or opinion. Seriously, get bent. "Its ok if the planes fall out of the sky until we have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of substandard products for that company"

You're just a clown. Don't watch O'Rielly? Then don't comment on his bubblegum

Take a nap. Then re-read what I wrote. Also, the wars have run 10 years so I'd think we'd have plenty of information/data to answer those questions. Could've had it in a year. If anything, Reuters or the news outlets would've caught this as a problem long before the government would acknowledge it (remember the Bradley or the Osprey issues?)

Hey, guess what? That guy you just got the Big Mac meal from? He was probably high when he made it. Did you get a better or worse burger than you expected? Does that knowledge change where you're going to eat now?

Your highlighting is interesting. Do you think that a person that enlists has a higher life value than the person who toils and builds the equipment that the soldier uses? Do you think that person is worth more than the farmer that provides food that feeds the armies? That would appear to be one of the positions you're taking based on your bolding of the words, but I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'm curious what your stance is on that. Because most people I know that serve/served did so because they wanted to give back, or because the prospect excited them (and in some cases it was the only option they had out of school.) Not one of them did so in order to feel or be more important than others.

 

[iusmc2002]

GFY, then read my post

Hey, guess what. That Big Mac wasn't designed to protect me from the enemy, or aid me in locating, closing with and destroying the enemy.

Yes, I place a higher life value on the people that stand in harms way for me, than the farmer that grows their food.

We didn't serve because we wanted to be more important than anyone else. But the American people (not so much now as they used to) put great emphesis on the men and women who stand in front of them, whether the service members like it or not.

 

[iusmc2002]

<broken link removed>

Get back to me when they send 100,000 wreaths to the National Farmers Cemetary, or the Spoiled Union Workers Cemetary.......

 

[SonicBlue03]

You're still not getting it. O'Reilly's "revelation" isn't a revelation. It's not news. You know why? Because there hasn't been an increase in failures from their plant discovery. If there was, that manufacturer would be crucified in the court of public opinion, would have their contracts at risk, would face fines, etc. as would those workers. That happens, we have news. A bunch of dummies doing drugs on the clock making anything - guns, planes, tanks, etc. - is not new. Guaranteed it happens all the time. The issue is when their use is shown to create unsafe equipment then it's a problem.

Something for you to consider. By placing a higher value on life due to government service is very counter to what those many men and women died to fight against in WWII.

 

[iusmc2002]

Something for you to consider. By placing a higher value on life due to standing on the wall for me, makes me normal.

People drink and drive, guaranteed it happens all the time. It's not new. But, since it doesn't affect you, directly, you don't care. The issue is when it affects you, then you get upset. I've had those substandard pieces of equipment affect me. I've had 240 rounds stuck in the chamber because the rim ripped off, explode on my (luckily) gloved hand. I've had MULTIPLE ftf with M16/M4 rounds. I've had multiple Mk-19 rounds in one can NOT explode when they impacted the side of a building. I've seen TOW missiles NOT fire, and have to halt fire-and-maneuver training for hours until EOD gets there. I've seen those same TOW missiles head out of the tube and 200 meters out, dive into the deck and start tumbling. These were real, live HE rounds. Know what would have happened had my CAAT team fired one of THOSE missiles at a tank? We'd prolly be dead, or I'd have been down a truck, at the minimum. Were my examples the shoddy work of stoned workers? I'll never know. But its OK, because you know, it happens all the time.

Please forgive me my venemous come-backs to your idiotic notion that because 'ol Bill didn't make this "revelation" it isn't news. He didn't report if first, but where do you think the "manufacturer would be crucified in the court of public opinion" starts?

 

[SonicBlue03]

Those are great examples of quality issues that need to be looked at. You're not going to get any disagreement. And that's a better (more useful) news story: "Continued critical failures of equipment plague military: manufactuers investigated for quality control" rather than "a bunch of dummies got caught smoking pot at a Humvee plant." If you link the drug use to the failures, you generate more outrage and interest.

Link the behavior to an action. Without linking it, it's just a behavior. Exactly where the court of public opinion enters - you say, "there has been an X% increase in military accidents or fatalities due to substandard products coming from plants Y and Z. Plants Y and Z have found an increase in drug use by employees."

Otherwise, no, it's not news. Link to outcome, drive change. Unlinked to any outcome, it's white noise.

And that very well make you normal, which for our country says more about us as a whole than it does about you as an individual. And that's the pity for all of us.

 

[dmancornell]

Proper title for report: "Good-enough-for-government-work mediocrity infects private economy"

As for the drugs, some of the best code I've written was while drunk or high, so who cares as long as proper QA is followed (see above).

 

[iusmc2002]

Oh, now I understand. You're just whiny about the TITLE of the news story. Not the facts of it. You're right, I was not getting it earlier. Glad we got that cleared up, finally.

Unfortunately, we go through so much equipment over there, such a fast turnover, that there is almost no way to account for failures from plants Y and Z. There is also the issue of the contracts. DD contracts a certain company to make a certain item. If its found to be substandard, what happens? We pause the wars until we get it figured out? Or until they can go through the legal BS of ending the contract and setting another contract up with another provider and get that product moving to the places it needs to go? How about we just make sure the equipment isn't being made by substandard employees, who want to get stupid ON the job!
I have no problem with folks that smoke pot. I enjoyed the bubblegum out of it when I was in high school. When I was a kid. When I wasn't an adult. When my actions or inactions didn't seem to affect anyone but me, and the cows' pens I mucked out for a job. If these fools want to go home and get completely lambasted in their house, away from their place of employment (that coincidentally makes parts for the DD) then I say, "Good on you!"

And your last sentence says more about why you live in Washington, than you could vocalize to me in a million years

 

[SonicBlue03]

You're confusing posts now. Could care less about the title (although dman's comment was pretty funny.)

There is a way to account for failures. Ammo comes from a small subset of vendors. Firearms, another. Missiles, rockets, etc. another. Troops that experience these failures (and live) notify their chain-of-command. That information should be going to supply corps, or logisitics, or whatever it's called nowadays. That's the group that should be responsible for going to the inspectors and raising the concern of, "hey, why is this stuff malfunctioning at a higher rate?" That should be their daily job. If they're not doing it, they're not doing their jobs. And they're putting people at risk.

They should have on hand the higher-than-expected failure rates. And it's very possible that the failures you're seeing are considered acceptable by government standards (which is a whole separate issue, right?)

The assumption that's been made a lot here is that it's due to people being stupid. It could be a failed manufacturing process, or just shoddy QC overall. That's the bigger issue - QC. How much of it is automated, how much is being done at the company, and how much is being done prior to accepting the equipment?

Whether or not the worker do drugs on or off the job is immaterial. Are they dummies for doing it at work? Yes. Has their use impacted the quality of the work they're responsible for? If yes, then that's the real story. If no, there's no story there.

 

[iusmc2002]

You're still advocating that we wait until they make mistakes before there is any corrective action taken. Why?

 

[JGRuby]

There are things that happen that in most cases will not effect the outcomes of ones life - in the military when it comes to equipment this often is not the case. I was in submarines for over 13 years - I can guarantee you that at 300 feet down you do not want to find out that the equipment you have is faulty. Men are human and make mistakes but why is it ok to for others to compound those possible mistakes simply because they choose to be impaired on the job. Actions have consequences - the problem in this case is that the consequences do not impact the ones performing the actions. Union or not this is simply unacceptable.

James Ruby

 

[SonicBlue03]

You're still advocating that we wait until they make mistakes before there is any corrective action taken. Why?

No, not the case. I'm saying it's not news.

They employees got caught violating company policy - Union or not, they should be termed for that (although under ADA they'll have initial protection since drug and alcohol use is generally covered under addiction accommodation.) That's pretty straightforward.

Equipment failures should be mitigated by good QC process, both at the vendor and government levels. That's also pretty straightforward.

Making a big news story about some dummies high on the job that doesn't point to production issues coming out of that particular plant isn't news. If a high rate of failures traced to that plant and it was discovered that the workers were high on the job, that's news.

 

[rufus]

You should work for the Associated Press deciding what is news and what is not.

 

[MinnesotaORnewbie]

So you 1) hate the messenger so much you will not listen to the message but still choose to make comments about the message and 2) are okay with people drinking and doing drugs at work while they make safety equipment for our military.

Did I get that right?

Why do you like to Put your own words in the place of others, your post had nothing to do with the quote you were turning into your own equation of twist garbage. Those are words of trying to stir the pot and get a arguement started over nothing, im sorry but you are, well, I won't fall into your little trap of getting others worked up and into your little pissing match over stupid things, find more constructive things to do

Rufus> you need to hug yourself once a day

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So I don't have to watch anything that Bill O'Reilly puts out, is his emphasis anti-Union or horror that our fightin' boys might have equipment put together by people who do drugs?

He's anti-union because he's a paid corporate shill. He's playing on our presumed sympathy for the troops, just like the Democrats do everything they do "for the children." His real aim is to get you angry enough to watch his drivel, which gives him and his sponsors a chance to sell you garbage you wouldn't otherwise buy. He knows that people will watch him in order to have their particular political views reinforced, no matter how extreme, unreasonable, ignorant, or inaccurate those views might be. Deep down, he's got to be embarrassed about what he does to sell $2 ball caps for $30, but at least for now the money he makes is worth it to him.

 

[rufus]

Why do you like to Put your own words in the place of others, your post had nothing to do with the quote you were turning into your own equation of twist garbage. Those are words of trying to stir the pot and get a arguement started over nothing, im sorry but you are, well, I won't fall into your little trap of getting others worked up and into your little pissing match over stupid things, find more constructive things to do

Rufus> you need to hug yourself once a day

Point taken. I do, however, tend to speak my mind. When I read something and notice a slant, I point it out. In this case, he admits he will not read/view because of Bill O'Reilly, but then shares his opinion anyway. I disagree with his opinion and state why. Bummer, 'eh?

Edited to add: There is an ignore function. Don't like my opinions? Ignore them & be happy.