Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 462836" data-attributes="member: 484">Steve&nbsp;The &quot;other factors&quot; that played into this guy getting fired were there from the local hearing to the arbitration.&nbsp; All of it.&nbsp; And it was taken as a whole by the whole process.&nbsp; &nbsp;Red&nbsp;Had this guy tried, this would have never happened.&nbsp; Agree?&nbsp;But he didnt.&nbsp; Wouldn&#039;t.&nbsp; Refused to try.&nbsp; And when questioned about it, was arrogant about it.&nbsp;As for reading into the contract what is not there, all she did was state there are some basic rights for both sides that are not covered under the contract, because they were a given.&nbsp; One of the givens is that UPS has to make a profit.&nbsp; And the Unionized workforce is to support that effort as much as possible while in the uniform.&nbsp;She is in no way stating that there are numbers or production issues that are covered even though they are not covered.&nbsp;Basically, she is stating the obvious.&nbsp; UPS does have a right to expect their drivers to be productive.&nbsp; And while that right is not covered in the contract, it is still their right.&nbsp;What is also not covered under the contract is what actually is a fair days pay for a fair days work.&nbsp; But it was assumed that both parties would leave that as something fluid from one employee to another, one route to another.&nbsp; And until some maroon pushes both sides to pin it down, there it shall stay.&nbsp;So no, she did not give UPS a win on production.&nbsp; And she was not advocating adding to the contract at her whim.&nbsp;d</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 462836, member: 484"] Steve The "other factors" that played into this guy getting fired were there from the local hearing to the arbitration. All of it. And it was taken as a whole by the whole process. Red Had this guy tried, this would have never happened. Agree? But he didnt. Wouldn't. Refused to try. And when questioned about it, was arrogant about it. As for reading into the contract what is not there, all she did was state there are some basic rights for both sides that are not covered under the contract, because they were a given. One of the givens is that UPS has to make a profit. And the Unionized workforce is to support that effort as much as possible while in the uniform. She is in no way stating that there are numbers or production issues that are covered even though they are not covered. Basically, she is stating the obvious. UPS does have a right to expect their drivers to be productive. And while that right is not covered in the contract, it is still their right. What is also not covered under the contract is what actually is a fair days pay for a fair days work. But it was assumed that both parties would leave that as something fluid from one employee to another, one route to another. And until some maroon pushes both sides to pin it down, there it shall stay. So no, she did not give UPS a win on production. And she was not advocating adding to the contract at her whim. d [/QUOTE]

Verification