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
UPS debt?
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: 855095" data-attributes="member: 927"><p>As I recall, the language for 22.3 jobs mentioned something that volume had to come back? I looked for the exact language, but could not find it.</p><p></p><p>The company argued that volume was down after the strike and therefore was not obligated to create the jobs. I found quotes from the Heritage Foundation supporting this.</p><p></p><p>The Teamsters argued that the jobs were still owed (and I think that the volume loss was not due to the strike?).</p><p></p><p>In the end, UPS lost the court case and created the 10,000 jobs.</p><p></p><p>At least that is my memory.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pretzel_man, post: 855095, member: 927"] As I recall, the language for 22.3 jobs mentioned something that volume had to come back? I looked for the exact language, but could not find it. The company argued that volume was down after the strike and therefore was not obligated to create the jobs. I found quotes from the Heritage Foundation supporting this. The Teamsters argued that the jobs were still owed (and I think that the volume loss was not due to the strike?). In the end, UPS lost the court case and created the 10,000 jobs. At least that is my memory. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
UPS debt?
Top