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
UPS Contracting work
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="AssistantSanta" data-source="post: 923293" data-attributes="member: 38503"><p>Good point. I'm not familiar with how arbitrators rule, but when someone brings up the issue of writing up non-sense contract like union membership is condition of employment except where prohibited when its been prohibited by federal law for over half a century; how are they going to explain it? (referring back to the post you made a few days back) </p><p></p><p>In my opinion including semi-independent workers to "working in conjunction" isn't a stretch and can name plenty of examples that I believe are generally accepted as such. Secretaries, research assistants, sales rep(even if they drive on their own, sealing a deal can require authorization from the boss), retail employees, etc. They're not under constant supervision, yet they work in conjunction with their respective superiors. They all assist others, but not "on a least" all the time so to speak. Perhaps you could explain your side? </p><p></p><p></p><p>If the negotiation specifically said "to work in close proximity with" or "within immediate supervision" then I think there is a case, but we're just speculating here since this thread does not have those notes we can refer to.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Enlighten me. I see dividing task and running parts that do not require the operation of a vehicle defined as motor vehicle per state law as helping driver. It helps the driver gets everything in the truck delivered in less time. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It said 47% opposed. That's approximately half. I can't say that about half is "most". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let me see the language that says that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AssistantSanta, post: 923293, member: 38503"] Good point. I'm not familiar with how arbitrators rule, but when someone brings up the issue of writing up non-sense contract like union membership is condition of employment except where prohibited when its been prohibited by federal law for over half a century; how are they going to explain it? (referring back to the post you made a few days back) In my opinion including semi-independent workers to "working in conjunction" isn't a stretch and can name plenty of examples that I believe are generally accepted as such. Secretaries, research assistants, sales rep(even if they drive on their own, sealing a deal can require authorization from the boss), retail employees, etc. They're not under constant supervision, yet they work in conjunction with their respective superiors. They all assist others, but not "on a least" all the time so to speak. Perhaps you could explain your side? If the negotiation specifically said "to work in close proximity with" or "within immediate supervision" then I think there is a case, but we're just speculating here since this thread does not have those notes we can refer to. Enlighten me. I see dividing task and running parts that do not require the operation of a vehicle defined as motor vehicle per state law as helping driver. It helps the driver gets everything in the truck delivered in less time. It said 47% opposed. That's approximately half. I can't say that about half is "most". Let me see the language that says that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
UPS Contracting work
Top