Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 462863" data-attributes="member: 484">One more thought for you Red&nbsp;If the wicked witch of the west was really pro company and against this clown, why did this happen the way it did.&nbsp;Remember when he surprised everyone with the revelation he had the tapes of his production rides? The tapes of day 2&amp;3 only when he had the tape all three days?&nbsp;When that happens at a hearing like this, and the evidence that is mentioned is not in the opposing sides folder of testimony, they usually respond by calling for a point of order.&nbsp;This is where one of the sides is not playing by the established rules, in this case the driver. Out of the blue, and at no other hearing until this one, is the existence of these tapes made public.&nbsp;So UPS, rightfully so, asks that they not be allowed as evidence.&nbsp;But the arbitrator rules AGAINST UPS to allow the tapes in, but UPS will first be allowed the time to listen and document what is on the tapes. Fair enough.&nbsp;Notice she rules against UPS and in favor of the driver, even though the driver has gone overboard in his disregard for proper protocols at her hearing, reinforcing what the company has been complaining about.&nbsp;Now, he bluffed, and the arbitrator, hoping at last there might be a shred of evidence supporting anything he has presented, calls the bluff and allows it into evidence.&nbsp;Of course the result is that after discussions with council, the driver withdraws his offer to share the tapes with everyone.&nbsp;So contrary to your analysis of the arbitrator having an ax to grind with this guy, or being pro business, I see her more of a motherly type who was hoping to find at least one shred of redeeming value in this driver, even to the extent that she over ruled UPS&#039;s objections to allow the tapes.&nbsp;So there you have why I believe what I believe. You are more than free to continue this discussion, but I believe I am done.&nbsp;Best&nbsp;d</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 462863, member: 484"] One more thought for you Red If the wicked witch of the west was really pro company and against this clown, why did this happen the way it did. Remember when he surprised everyone with the revelation he had the tapes of his production rides? The tapes of day 2&3 only when he had the tape all three days? When that happens at a hearing like this, and the evidence that is mentioned is not in the opposing sides folder of testimony, they usually respond by calling for a point of order. This is where one of the sides is not playing by the established rules, in this case the driver. Out of the blue, and at no other hearing until this one, is the existence of these tapes made public. So UPS, rightfully so, asks that they not be allowed as evidence. But the arbitrator rules [B][COLOR=red][U]AGAINST[/U][/COLOR][/B] UPS to allow the tapes in, but UPS will first be allowed the time to listen and document what is on the tapes. Fair enough. Notice she rules against UPS and in favor of the driver, even though the driver has gone overboard in his disregard for proper protocols at her hearing, reinforcing what the company has been complaining about. Now, he bluffed, and the arbitrator, hoping at last there might be a shred of evidence supporting anything he has presented, calls the bluff and allows it into evidence. Of course the result is that after discussions with council, the driver withdraws his offer to share the tapes with everyone. So contrary to your analysis of the arbitrator having an ax to grind with this guy, or being pro business, I see her more of a motherly type who was hoping to find at least one shred of redeeming value in this driver, even to the extent that she over ruled UPS's objections to allow the tapes. So there you have why I believe what I believe. You are more than free to continue this discussion, but I believe I am done. Best d [/QUOTE]

Verification