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
Jonfrum
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="RockyRogue" data-source="post: 222181" data-attributes="member: 7185"><p>I'd have to agree with Area43, Cole, as far as condoning an unethical act. </p><p> </p><p>Cole, its called confidentiality for a <em>reason</em>. Its also called non-public/internal memoranda. I have no proof that's what JonFrum has posted but it makes sense. I'm not trying to attack Jon or Cole here. However, internal memoranda is just that: <strong><em>internal</em></strong>. There's a reason its not publicly available. </p><p> </p><p>Area, I could be wrong but it'd be something akin to trademark, copright or patent infringement to <em>knowingly</em> give a recipe to a competitor. Here again, there's a reason so many companies (not counting UPS in this group--yet) that have management sign no-compete clauses. I was about to go p/t sup a number of years ago and had to sign some paperwork. One of the things I had to sign lit up a very, <em>very</em> small alarm in my head. I read it, looked up at my friend/t'er and said, "This is the 'poor man's' version of a no-compete, isn't it?" He was caught completely flat-footed. He blinked in obvious surprise and said, "Similar but different in these respects," and rattled them off. I had a point to make with the guy and knew what the differences were before he told me. I'm directing this to pt and ft management at UPS: <strong><em>NO COMPETES ARE COMING</em></strong>! </p><p> </p><p>Area, I apologize for hijacking this thread. -Rocky</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RockyRogue, post: 222181, member: 7185"] I'd have to agree with Area43, Cole, as far as condoning an unethical act. Cole, its called confidentiality for a [I]reason[/I]. Its also called non-public/internal memoranda. I have no proof that's what JonFrum has posted but it makes sense. I'm not trying to attack Jon or Cole here. However, internal memoranda is just that: [B][I]internal[/I][/B]. There's a reason its not publicly available. Area, I could be wrong but it'd be something akin to trademark, copright or patent infringement to [I]knowingly[/I] give a recipe to a competitor. Here again, there's a reason so many companies (not counting UPS in this group--yet) that have management sign no-compete clauses. I was about to go p/t sup a number of years ago and had to sign some paperwork. One of the things I had to sign lit up a very, [I]very[/I] small alarm in my head. I read it, looked up at my friend/t'er and said, "This is the 'poor man's' version of a no-compete, isn't it?" He was caught completely flat-footed. He blinked in obvious surprise and said, "Similar but different in these respects," and rattled them off. I had a point to make with the guy and knew what the differences were before he told me. I'm directing this to pt and ft management at UPS: [B][I]NO COMPETES ARE COMING[/I][/B]! Area, I apologize for hijacking this thread. -Rocky [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Jonfrum
Top