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
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1149756" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Once again, you demonstrate that you dont understand the written word. What TDU says, what I say, and what the intelligent thinking members say is the SAME THING.</p><p></p><p>In this regard, TDU's posting is the correct explanation. THATS RIGHT. A member, who does not support TDU states that they are CORRECT with the explanation. Lets be clear. article 6 states that the company ONLY NEED TO PROVE THE FOLLOWING... AN INTENTIONAL ACT or an OMMISION to establish the the employee intended to defraud the company ( dishonesty ) </p><p></p><p>THERE IS NO CAVEAT that says THE COMPANY must confirm by direct observation ANYTHING.</p><p></p><p>You are <strong>MIXING </strong>two separate paragraphs and attempting to make one paragraph out of them. Lets look at the whole context of article 6 and compare that to what YOU are representing to the folks on this board.</p><p></p><p>actual:</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'">Section 6. Technology and Discipline</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px">No employee shall be discharged if such discharge is based solely upon information received from GPS or any successor system</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px">unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). </span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px">The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge. The degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not be changed because of the use of GPS.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px">The Company acknowledges that there have been problems with the utilization of technology in the past. Therefore, at the request of the Union’s Joint National Negotiating Committee Co-Chair a</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px">meeting will be scheduled with the Company Co-Chair to discuss any alleged misuse of technology for disciplinary purposes and what steps are necessary to remedy any misuse.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-family: 'Times-Bold'"><span style="font-size: 9px"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">You have mistaken sentences whether intentionally or ignorantly and you are <strong><u>WRONG.</u></strong></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">First, you have to understand that the first paragraph has <strong>NOTHING</strong> to do with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is "SELF DEFINING". In that, it contains the "defining clause" that separates it from the second paragraph. "(defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). "</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">This you cannot ignore. It states the purpose of the language contained in the first paragraph. NOWHERE in the first paragraph does the company need direct observation or corroborating evidence other than information solely obtained from technological devices. All that is needed to be proven is either "an intentional act" or "an ommision" that proves that the employee intended on defrauding the company.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">THIS MAKES TDU CORRECT IN ITS ASSESSMENT in the link you provided.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">Now the word <em>"defrauding"</em> is too vague and general to be used. This makes it a BAD WORD.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">Where you are in ERR is in the second paragraph. What you are claiming is the INCORRECT usage of the sentence structure. You stated: </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px">"TA Language: The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge."</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">This sentence applies to "ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS" other than the violations in the first paragraph. You cannot ignore the words "ANY OTHER" as they are the CAVEAT of the sentence.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">In cases other than violations where the company bases a discharge on technology, they must have direct observation along with "other" corroborating evidence.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">This alone separates it from the first paragraph.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">No matter how you try to explain it, or how your B.A. told you, your UNDERSTANDING is WRONG and you are giving the WRONG advice.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">As to the issue of TDU being wrong on their site, you STAND CORRECTED AGAIN. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">Peace</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px">TOS</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'arial'"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1149756, member: 17969"] Once again, you demonstrate that you dont understand the written word. What TDU says, what I say, and what the intelligent thinking members say is the SAME THING. In this regard, TDU's posting is the correct explanation. THATS RIGHT. A member, who does not support TDU states that they are CORRECT with the explanation. Lets be clear. article 6 states that the company ONLY NEED TO PROVE THE FOLLOWING... AN INTENTIONAL ACT or an OMMISION to establish the the employee intended to defraud the company ( dishonesty ) THERE IS NO CAVEAT that says THE COMPANY must confirm by direct observation ANYTHING. You are [B]MIXING [/B]two separate paragraphs and attempting to make one paragraph out of them. Lets look at the whole context of article 6 and compare that to what YOU are representing to the folks on this board. actual: [SIZE=4][FONT=Times-Bold][FONT=Times-Bold]Section 6. Technology and Discipline [/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=1][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=1][SIZE=4]No employee shall be discharged if such discharge is based solely upon information received from GPS or any successor system[/SIZE] [SIZE=4]unless he/she engages in dishonesty (defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge. The degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not be changed because of the use of GPS. [/SIZE] [SIZE=4]The Company acknowledges that there have been problems with the utilization of technology in the past. Therefore, at the request of the Union’s Joint National Negotiating Committee Co-Chair a[/SIZE] [SIZE=4]meeting will be scheduled with the Company Co-Chair to discuss any alleged misuse of technology for disciplinary purposes and what steps are necessary to remedy any misuse. [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial][SIZE=4] [SIZE=3]You have mistaken sentences whether intentionally or ignorantly and you are [B][U]WRONG.[/U][/B] First, you have to understand that the first paragraph has [B]NOTHING[/B] to do with the second paragraph. The first paragraph is "SELF DEFINING". In that, it contains the "defining clause" that separates it from the second paragraph. "(defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any intentional act or omission by an employee where he/she intends to defraud the Company). " This you cannot ignore. It states the purpose of the language contained in the first paragraph. NOWHERE in the first paragraph does the company need direct observation or corroborating evidence other than information solely obtained from technological devices. All that is needed to be proven is either "an intentional act" or "an ommision" that proves that the employee intended on defrauding the company. THIS MAKES TDU CORRECT IN ITS ASSESSMENT in the link you provided. Now the word [I]"defrauding"[/I] is too vague and general to be used. This makes it a BAD WORD. Where you are in ERR is in the second paragraph. What you are claiming is the INCORRECT usage of the sentence structure. You stated: "TA Language: The Company must confirm by direct observation or other corroborating evidence any other violations warranting discharge." [/SIZE] This sentence applies to "ANY OTHER VIOLATIONS" other than the violations in the first paragraph. You cannot ignore the words "ANY OTHER" as they are the CAVEAT of the sentence. In cases other than violations where the company bases a discharge on technology, they must have direct observation along with "other" corroborating evidence. This alone separates it from the first paragraph. No matter how you try to explain it, or how your B.A. told you, your UNDERSTANDING is WRONG and you are giving the WRONG advice. As to the issue of TDU being wrong on their site, you STAND CORRECTED AGAIN. :censored: Peace TOS [/SIZE] [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
TDU & TOS - VS - 396 BA & the H STEWARDS
Top