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
Future for Article 22.3 jobs?
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: 442963" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>Actually, the local wheel's title is Secty-Treas. He's been on the negotiating committees and shows up in the group shots in the Teamster mag. The BA is just his flunky, fifth level in the hierarchy (Hoffa-hall-Chuck Mack-my SectyTreas - BA). He said he understood it the way I did - had heard of the other interpretation, but rejected it. But he's kickin' back and may not be that much in the loop now...</p><p> </p><p>It's not just my opinion that the contract talks about "permanent fulltime job openings" and "the full time jobs which will need to be maintained". Those are quotes. You'd really have to torture the English language to come up with the "interpretation" that "permanent" doesn't really modify "jobs" or that the fulltime job that ImTheMan had is still "permanent" even though HE's been sent back to part time.</p><p> </p><p>The language is clear. The history of what 22.3 was intended to accomplish is clear. The idiocy of asserting that UPS is maintaining parmanent jobs when it can arbitrarily shut one down in one place as long as it, after some indeterminate interval, starts someone else in 22.3 progression someplace else is clear. That is my "opinion" in the same sense as it is my "opinion" that water is wet -- there is no reasonable counter-opinion. What the arbitrator will decide may well depend on what the people who pay his rather lush fees tell him to say, rather than on what the language or the history of the language indicate he ought to decide. Hoffa may have told UPS the company can do what it wants to the 22.3s as a throw-in on the Central States payoff and UPS Freight dues, and the "arbitrators" job will in that case be to try to make the unreasonable seem reasonable. But it's not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 442963, member: 9310"] Actually, the local wheel's title is Secty-Treas. He's been on the negotiating committees and shows up in the group shots in the Teamster mag. The BA is just his flunky, fifth level in the hierarchy (Hoffa-hall-Chuck Mack-my SectyTreas - BA). He said he understood it the way I did - had heard of the other interpretation, but rejected it. But he's kickin' back and may not be that much in the loop now... It's not just my opinion that the contract talks about "permanent fulltime job openings" and "the full time jobs which will need to be maintained". Those are quotes. You'd really have to torture the English language to come up with the "interpretation" that "permanent" doesn't really modify "jobs" or that the fulltime job that ImTheMan had is still "permanent" even though HE's been sent back to part time. The language is clear. The history of what 22.3 was intended to accomplish is clear. The idiocy of asserting that UPS is maintaining parmanent jobs when it can arbitrarily shut one down in one place as long as it, after some indeterminate interval, starts someone else in 22.3 progression someplace else is clear. That is my "opinion" in the same sense as it is my "opinion" that water is wet -- there is no reasonable counter-opinion. What the arbitrator will decide may well depend on what the people who pay his rather lush fees tell him to say, rather than on what the language or the history of the language indicate he ought to decide. Hoffa may have told UPS the company can do what it wants to the 22.3s as a throw-in on the Central States payoff and UPS Freight dues, and the "arbitrators" job will in that case be to try to make the unreasonable seem reasonable. But it's not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Future for Article 22.3 jobs?
Top