dang tie, you cant stay focused for shnit nor high water, can ya.
this post was about her picking up more than 70 packages, and it happens more than once. when confronted, she mumbled something about the driver missing a pickup, but by her previous post, that was, pretty good guess, made up after the fact to excuse the behavior. just like she did with other posts.
by her other posts, we also understand that she is not interested in upholding her end of the contract, which by default, means that she is less than ethical. and for sure, she has no clue when she is being used.
management told her to pick it up, the reasons given were varied, again, considering the posts, covering up her end of the mess.
so management is intentionally violating the contract on a regular basis, in this case, and in others.
jonesy i dont control. while he and i have our differences, the basics here are the same. you want us to be honest and ethical in our dealings with ups, but you dont have a problem being dishonest with us. in fact, its a game of hide and seek to you. and you wonder about our attitude????
but yet you want to stay focused on the little ole gal who gets an air delivered and has a package ready for ups to pick up.
ok, since you refuse to stay in the real world of how bad you were beaten on the relevant issues, lets play your version.
if management did not abuse the situation, i would have no problem if the air driver picked up ground here and there. none what so ever. see, stuff happens. to all of us. so the non planned delivery of air, and the single piece pickup is not an issue.
but, this is where the problem lies. we look the other way for one package here and there, and look where it leads. to management sending an air driver out to a regular stop to pick up 70 ground packages, and then not having the balls to pay her correctly.
so see where cutting you slack gets us? not only do you abuse the situation, you try to violate the contract for pay, which is a dol issue. you really wanna go there?
I guess my question is that if you have people that actively and creatively try to generate grievances that maybe go beyond the intended scope of the contract shouldn't she be able to decide the other way and decide that there was no violation?
going beyond the scope? what the heck?
in the grievance procedure, you have a panel that decides what the intended scope was meant to be. if the grievance is bogus, it gets dropped. if not, it gets paid.
now, with the second part of that thought, you are getting back to what she felt. that she felt she was not violating the contract, but by several other of her posts, she knew, she was even defiant about it.
it is not her place, especially with the intimidation and "getting labeled" tactics used to allow this poor misguided girl to interpret the contract all by her lonesome.
there was a violation, and clearly so. man up to it man. quit hiding behind her dress.....er .....her browns........well you know, just man up!
d