Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Act Section 806
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pretzel_man" data-source="post: 561672" data-attributes="member: 927"><p>First, greed is an interesting word. I don't recall either side coming to the table asking for less. If you want more for yourself, its deserved. If UPS tries to get more for shareowners its greed. I'm not sure why greed got such a bad name.</p><p> </p><p>Next, I believe you are referring to the '97 contract and the provision for 10,000 new full time jobs, right. As I recall, there was some wording regarding that part of the contract being valid only if the lost volume returned back to UPS. You may have the actual wording, but as I recall volume was down and UPS argued that the article was not valid due to the loss.</p><p> </p><p>You argued (and won) that UPS was wrong. If someone has other facts, post them. Both sides believed they were right. The courts sided with the union. If the courts sided with UPS, I guess you would be pathologically sick?</p><p> </p><p>P-Man</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pretzel_man, post: 561672, member: 927"] First, greed is an interesting word. I don't recall either side coming to the table asking for less. If you want more for yourself, its deserved. If UPS tries to get more for shareowners its greed. I'm not sure why greed got such a bad name. Next, I believe you are referring to the '97 contract and the provision for 10,000 new full time jobs, right. As I recall, there was some wording regarding that part of the contract being valid only if the lost volume returned back to UPS. You may have the actual wording, but as I recall volume was down and UPS argued that the article was not valid due to the loss. You argued (and won) that UPS was wrong. If someone has other facts, post them. Both sides believed they were right. The courts sided with the union. If the courts sided with UPS, I guess you would be pathologically sick? P-Man [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Act Section 806
Top