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
What is L.P. thinking?
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: 432817" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Danny, I dont want to insult your intelligence anymore than you do yourself, but maybe if you read my post, you would have seen this line:</p><p> </p><p>"There had to be enough <strong><em>Prima facie evidence</em></strong> to make an initial case against this young man."</p><p> </p><p>This means "intial". </p><p> </p><p>Simply put, how much investigation is needed other than the record at hand. We have a young man in possession of a stolen cell phone, taken from the very employer of this young man. The young man "BY HIS" own admission states that he "bought" it from a former employee in the UPS parking lot for a reduced amount because the seller needed money.</p><p> </p><p>This is <strong>PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE</strong>.</p><p> </p><p>What further needs to be investigated? </p><p> </p><p>I'll tell you, what is the other guys name, address, phone number who sold it to him. How did he pay for it? Where did he get the cash to pay for it? or do all part timers walk around with a cool $100 bill stashed in their pockets for a rainy day?</p><p> </p><p>Why hasnt Red given us this persons info? Why hasnt Red sought to expose the seller to the same degree that he is "standing" up for this young man.</p><p> </p><p>Ill tell you, cause its most likely <strong>B.S.</strong></p><p> </p><p>You said: "red is not the legal agent for the guy. he has lawyers. but red is very <strong><span style="font-size: 12px">involved in the process, which helps."</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Emotional support is great, but taking time off work to hold someones hand is rediculous. Thats what attorneys are for. RED's over involvement takes a valuable asset away from UPS and the trade off is not worth the investment.</p><p> </p><p>RED should differ his involvement to the local and return to his duties and leave the legalities to the professionals.</p><p> </p><p>Just in case you think you understand contractual language, let me tell you a little something you dont know.</p><p> </p><p>RED's involvement in this case, requiring him to miss work, under the auspices of Article 16- section 1 , can also get RED FIRED.</p><p> </p><p>RED stated that he was not on OFFICIAL business, but the local was securing his time off so he can attend hearings, however, Article 16 section 1 provides that RED must be acting in an OFFICAL UNION matter and not babysitting a potential thief.</p><p> </p><p>If I were RED, I wouldnt go to the well too many times on this issue.</p><p> </p><p>This I can guarantee you.</p><p> </p><p>If UPS can prove that RED used the local to secure time off for NON-OFFICIAL UNION BUSINESS, they could discharge him for dishonesty.</p><p> </p><p>Sorry, but this is the truth. You may not like, but UPS will.</p><p> </p><p>Article 16- section 1 is not to be abused by ANY teamster hourly for personal business.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Secondly, whatever this was suppose to suggest:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is called <strong>supposition</strong>. It means nothing otherwise. Two years can do many things to a case.</p><p> </p><p>Mainly, its kills them. Guilty people walk free sometimes.</p><p> </p><p>I dont read with my heart, I read with a defined, balanced and objective mindset. This case is like many others I have personally seen, people steal and blame others.</p><p> </p><p>Some claim that "ignorance" is their defense, but "ignorance" to the obvious is never a legitimate excuse.</p><p> </p><p>As the saying goes, "excuses dont explain, and explanations dont excuse"</p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/dead.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":dead:" title="Dead :dead:" data-shortname=":dead:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 432817, member: 17969"] Danny, I dont want to insult your intelligence anymore than you do yourself, but maybe if you read my post, you would have seen this line: "There had to be enough [B][I]Prima facie evidence[/I][/B] to make an initial case against this young man." This means "intial". Simply put, how much investigation is needed other than the record at hand. We have a young man in possession of a stolen cell phone, taken from the very employer of this young man. The young man "BY HIS" own admission states that he "bought" it from a former employee in the UPS parking lot for a reduced amount because the seller needed money. This is [B]PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE[/B]. What further needs to be investigated? I'll tell you, what is the other guys name, address, phone number who sold it to him. How did he pay for it? Where did he get the cash to pay for it? or do all part timers walk around with a cool $100 bill stashed in their pockets for a rainy day? Why hasnt Red given us this persons info? Why hasnt Red sought to expose the seller to the same degree that he is "standing" up for this young man. Ill tell you, cause its most likely [B]B.S.[/B] You said: "red is not the legal agent for the guy. he has lawyers. but red is very [B][SIZE=3]involved in the process, which helps."[/SIZE][/B] Emotional support is great, but taking time off work to hold someones hand is rediculous. Thats what attorneys are for. RED's over involvement takes a valuable asset away from UPS and the trade off is not worth the investment. RED should differ his involvement to the local and return to his duties and leave the legalities to the professionals. Just in case you think you understand contractual language, let me tell you a little something you dont know. RED's involvement in this case, requiring him to miss work, under the auspices of Article 16- section 1 , can also get RED FIRED. RED stated that he was not on OFFICIAL business, but the local was securing his time off so he can attend hearings, however, Article 16 section 1 provides that RED must be acting in an OFFICAL UNION matter and not babysitting a potential thief. If I were RED, I wouldnt go to the well too many times on this issue. This I can guarantee you. If UPS can prove that RED used the local to secure time off for NON-OFFICIAL UNION BUSINESS, they could discharge him for dishonesty. Sorry, but this is the truth. You may not like, but UPS will. Article 16- section 1 is not to be abused by ANY teamster hourly for personal business. Secondly, whatever this was suppose to suggest: This is called [B]supposition[/B]. It means nothing otherwise. Two years can do many things to a case. Mainly, its kills them. Guilty people walk free sometimes. I dont read with my heart, I read with a defined, balanced and objective mindset. This case is like many others I have personally seen, people steal and blame others. Some claim that "ignorance" is their defense, but "ignorance" to the obvious is never a legitimate excuse. As the saying goes, "excuses dont explain, and explanations dont excuse" :dead: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
What is L.P. thinking?
Top