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
22.3 Facts/Origins
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="gandydancer" data-source="post: 178461" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>I think it's pretty black-and-white, so it's puzzling and a bit discouraging that I can't even convince you of that. But I guess I'm glad for the opportunity to refine my argument to make it clearer. Try this:</p><p> </p><p>(1)Granted, "job" has multiple meaning in the dictionary. But the relevant sentence reads that neither layoff nor job loss will occur, ergo layoff and job loss are two different things. </p><p> </p><p>(2)Another 22.3 sentence I quoted talks of two "jobs" being combined into one "position", and I've seen part of the numbered list of 22.3 "positions": My own "position" has two such "jobs" - "capture" and "hub sort". If the company creates a position from, say, an "ECS" "job" and "hub sort" "job" and you lose the work you bid for and have to take up unload/reload, you have been involuntarily moved from what the contract calls one "job" to another "job". So you've lost your "job", haven't you?.</p><p> </p><p>So, how long ago did the pt air drivers lose their jobs?</p><p> </p><p>I don't think you should let your BA argue that the text is unclear, but he may be able to come up with a national panel or arbitrators decision rendering the text a dead letter. Precident is precident, even if wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 178461, member: 9310"] I think it's pretty black-and-white, so it's puzzling and a bit discouraging that I can't even convince you of that. But I guess I'm glad for the opportunity to refine my argument to make it clearer. Try this: (1)Granted, "job" has multiple meaning in the dictionary. But the relevant sentence reads that neither layoff nor job loss will occur, ergo layoff and job loss are two different things. (2)Another 22.3 sentence I quoted talks of two "jobs" being combined into one "position", and I've seen part of the numbered list of 22.3 "positions": My own "position" has two such "jobs" - "capture" and "hub sort". If the company creates a position from, say, an "ECS" "job" and "hub sort" "job" and you lose the work you bid for and have to take up unload/reload, you have been involuntarily moved from what the contract calls one "job" to another "job". So you've lost your "job", haven't you?. So, how long ago did the pt air drivers lose their jobs? I don't think you should let your BA argue that the text is unclear, but he may be able to come up with a national panel or arbitrators decision rendering the text a dead letter. Precident is precident, even if wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
22.3 Facts/Origins
Top