Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 463692" data-attributes="member: 484">Tin&nbsp;Most of us here that have been discussing the hearing have read the whole thing.&nbsp; And some have also had access to additional information as well.&nbsp;Agreed totally.&nbsp; For the union grievance process to be misused by a single driver with an agenda of his own for his personal gain of getting a union job...&nbsp;This is the only disagreement I see with what you posted.&nbsp; There is no production language in writing.&nbsp; There has always been some inferred level of production at UPS.&nbsp; You think UPS under our contract would not be able to do something if every driver tomorrow only delivered 5 stops in 10 hours?&nbsp; Your telling me before this, there was nothing they could do?&nbsp;This hearing did not change a thing.&nbsp; And the arbitrator made it very clear that production was only a small part of why UPS got rid of him.&nbsp;Any BA worth his salt would not have a hard time defending production against the company if they tried to use this as a basis for the termination.&nbsp; It does not set any precedence, it does not give the company any new powers over production that they already did not have.&nbsp;&nbsp;And herein is the story behind the production story.&nbsp; HE wanted/dreams of being the next powerhouse leader of the teamsters.&nbsp; Starting with 804.&nbsp; Not saying he is not a great guy, not saying he is at some future date still going to be a leader of consequence in the union.&nbsp;But this display of &quot;courage&quot; against UPS was foolhardy without the luggage he carried in with him.&nbsp; As a total package, it was suicide.&nbsp; It did look like the union did not give him adequate help, on the surface.&nbsp; But I would bet they tried to change the presentation without success.&nbsp;d</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 463692, member: 484"] Tin Most of us here that have been discussing the hearing have read the whole thing. And some have also had access to additional information as well. Agreed totally. For the union grievance process to be misused by a single driver with an agenda of his own for his personal gain of getting a union job... This is the only disagreement I see with what you posted. There is no production language in writing. There has always been some inferred level of production at UPS. You think UPS under our contract would not be able to do something if every driver tomorrow only delivered 5 stops in 10 hours? Your telling me before this, there was nothing they could do? This hearing did not change a thing. And the arbitrator made it very clear that production was only a small part of why UPS got rid of him. Any BA worth his salt would not have a hard time defending production against the company if they tried to use this as a basis for the termination. It does not set any precedence, it does not give the company any new powers over production that they already did not have. And herein is the story behind the production story. HE wanted/dreams of being the next powerhouse leader of the teamsters. Starting with 804. Not saying he is not a great guy, not saying he is at some future date still going to be a leader of consequence in the union. But this display of "courage" against UPS was foolhardy without the luggage he carried in with him. As a total package, it was suicide. It did look like the union did not give him adequate help, on the surface. But I would bet they tried to change the presentation without success. d [/QUOTE]

Verification