Made a sexual joke, got attacked, advice?

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
Being scheduled no hours but still being employed is illegal, no?

No it is not.

Is it possible for him to do something against the rules?

Yes.

If yes, then your point is utterly irrelevant. It's pure assumption.

No assumption. I take that back. I'm assuming the Steward would do his job.

If the labor manager did something against the rules, the Steward would have said something.

No mention anywhere of you saying the Steward told the labor manager that he cannot do that.

So it is a pretty well-informed assumption.

You can't say he wasn't breaking the rules because he isn't allowed to therefore you assume he meant something else. That's horrible logic.

No, I'm saying that if the labor manager was breaking the rules, the Steward would have said something. And nothing was said, hence, the labor manager probably was not breaking the rules.

it's just not applicable to THIS situation because of the 3rd option presented

Was this third option actually present? If it was, the Steward would have said something.

So I do not believe that this third option was actually present.

I believe this third option was part of the second option. Meaning that when you're fired, you will have zero hours.

But the 3rd option is what makes this different and pretending it doesnt exist is wild to me.

Again, I don't believe this third option was present.

If the labor manager said resign or I'm taking away all your hours, and that's all he said, and left it there, the Steward would have said he cannot do that.

So I believe this option was not present.

And now you're saying this wasn't you, that you heard this second hand, and that you're getting the continuing story as time progresses, that you did not hear it all at once.

And we all know how that goes. The first person says green. By the time the third person repeats it, it's yellow.
 

Sadman101

Active Member
No it is not.
It is if it's used to encourage resignation.
No assumption. I take that back. I'm assuming the Steward would do his job.

If the labor manager did something against the rules, the Steward would have said something.

No mention anywhere of you saying the Steward told the labor manager that he cannot do that.

So it is a pretty well-informed assumption.
That's where you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You, and pretty much everyone else, said the shop steward was wrong to advise resignation. If we establish he is fallible, he is no longer able to be used to support your arguement of "the shop steward knows". Do you see the problem yet? You are both saying he is wrong, but also, he should know. Which is it?
Was this third option actually present? If it was, the Steward would have said something.

So I do not believe that this third option was actually present.

I believe this third option was part of the second option. Meaning that when you're fired, you will have zero hours.
This is why I'm saying you are assuming stuff. You are also basing this off of faulty logic. The steward didn't know what he was talking about. He made a mistake that likely cost someone their job. So how can you also say he knows what he is talking about? I just don't get how you can use him to both support your point and to support a point that is the exact opposite.

Before you say he didn't make the original mistake, a lawyer friend'in up your defense isn't ok just because you committed a crime.

And now you're saying this wasn't you, that you heard this second hand, and that you're getting the continuing story as time progresses, that you did not hear it all at once.

And we all know how that goes. The first person says green. By the time the third person repeats it, it's yellow.
I am 100% with you on this. I once had to call an ambulance for an allergic reaction to medication, by the time the dispatcher talked to fire department and the fire department talked to the paramedics and the paramedics talked to the ER staff, I went from an allergic reaction to medication to homeless guy ODing on drugs. Hahahah. In reality, none of this matters as none of us were there, but we all know that already. My first comment is no more valid than my most recent. It's all on the internet.

This is more of an ideological issue here. We have finally boiled this down to it's bare pieces though.
 

Mugarolla

Light 'em up!
If we establish he is fallible, he is no longer able to be used to support your arguement of "the shop steward knows"

I don't agree.

1. The labor manager says resign or have your hours reduced to zero.

2. The labor manager says resign or be fired.

Given these two choices, I believe your shop Steward would have two different answers, therefore, we can conclude that number 1 never happened, since your shop Steward only gave you one answer.

Just because he told you to resign instead of being fired, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have told you to accept a 0 hours as opposed to resigning,

To resign or be fired was based on your shop Steward's advice or opinion.

While his opinion may have been wrong, it was not based in fact.

To resign or accept 0 hours, would be based on fact and contractual language.

This one would be an easy call to make. To resign or be fired would be a difficult call to make.

The steward didn't know what he was talking about.

His opinion was wrong because it wasn't based in fact. He probably thought there was only one option, because if you were terminated, in his eyes it would stick.
 
Top