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: 443099" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>Thanks. Indeed the union has a history of not enforcing the clear language of 22.3, notably the previous language about no pt losing his job in order to create a 22.3 job. But let's not confuse hall being obtuse about the clear meaning of the language he (re)negotiated (which has been reported on this board), which if true can only be bad faith, with an actual ambiguity in the intended meaning. It's absolutely clear that what the company is doing contravenes the stated intent (a path to fulltime career jobs for parttimers) of the previous union negotiators (the TDU crowd) in 1997 in negotiating 22.3 with the company, and that the company understood that intent at the time. And the language does, in fact, reflect this. Yes, it's contract law, not mathematics, and clever lawyers can't be prevented from manufacturing ambiguity out of the fact that words are not in fact well-defined mathematical constructs. But let's not confuse matters by pretending that what happened to ImThe Man is compatable with the '97 agreement. It's not, and that's a fact, not a mere "opinion".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 443099, member: 9310"] Thanks. Indeed the union has a history of not enforcing the clear language of 22.3, notably the previous language about no pt losing his job in order to create a 22.3 job. But let's not confuse hall being obtuse about the clear meaning of the language he (re)negotiated (which has been reported on this board), which if true can only be bad faith, with an actual ambiguity in the intended meaning. It's absolutely clear that what the company is doing contravenes the stated intent (a path to fulltime career jobs for parttimers) of the previous union negotiators (the TDU crowd) in 1997 in negotiating 22.3 with the company, and that the company understood that intent at the time. And the language does, in fact, reflect this. Yes, it's contract law, not mathematics, and clever lawyers can't be prevented from manufacturing ambiguity out of the fact that words are not in fact well-defined mathematical constructs. But let's not confuse matters by pretending that what happened to ImThe Man is compatable with the '97 agreement. It's not, and that's a fact, not a mere "opinion". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Future for Article 22.3 jobs?
Top