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 Union Issues
Just curious... how irreplaceable do you think we are here, in case of a strike??
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 1020007" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>104Feeder;</p><p></p><p>And, again, I pointed you to "Sprague v. CSPF", (one link to which can be found at...</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011091143FSupp2d948_11003.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006" target="_blank">SPRAGUE v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST�-�February 6, 2001.</a></p><p></p><p>..among other places) a court filing (and ruling) which I would say reflects the true concerns of the parties - and the basis on which they ultimately settled - better than a list of (by nature variable) "company proposals". In truth, it is the most factual after-the-fact encapsulation of the job action that I've yet encountered. Of course, because while in the process of answering the suit one of it's members ("Sprague") filed against one of its entities, the union had to admit in it that it "blinked" first, it's not something it likes to advertize. However, that doesn't make it any less credible; it's hard for the union to deny its own testimony.</p><p></p><p>Now, if legal filings by (A) the company, and (B) the union, and (C) Central States Pension Fund - and rulings on same - are your idea of "misinformation", then I'm not sure what wouldn't be "misinformation" in your book. Bottom line is that, if you don't trust your union and one of your union's pension fund to tell the truth in court, I doubt if you'd trust anybody that had something to offer on the topic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 1020007, member: 16651"] 104Feeder; And, again, I pointed you to "Sprague v. CSPF", (one link to which can be found at... [URL="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011091143FSupp2d948_11003.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006"]SPRAGUE v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST�-�February 6, 2001.[/URL] ..among other places) a court filing (and ruling) which I would say reflects the true concerns of the parties - and the basis on which they ultimately settled - better than a list of (by nature variable) "company proposals". In truth, it is the most factual after-the-fact encapsulation of the job action that I've yet encountered. Of course, because while in the process of answering the suit one of it's members ("Sprague") filed against one of its entities, the union had to admit in it that it "blinked" first, it's not something it likes to advertize. However, that doesn't make it any less credible; it's hard for the union to deny its own testimony. Now, if legal filings by (A) the company, and (B) the union, and (C) Central States Pension Fund - and rulings on same - are your idea of "misinformation", then I'm not sure what wouldn't be "misinformation" in your book. Bottom line is that, if you don't trust your union and one of your union's pension fund to tell the truth in court, I doubt if you'd trust anybody that had something to offer on the topic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Just curious... how irreplaceable do you think we are here, in case of a strike??
Top