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
Progression pay
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="gandydancer" data-source="post: 494263" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>No, Red, it's not clear that it says what you want it to mean. It doesn't say "below", it says "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", and Article 41, Section 2 contains both 2(a) and 2(c), with the former saying in its text that it applies in this case and the latter saying in its text that it does not. The clear meaning of the text is that 2(a) applies when it says it does and 2(c) applies when it says it does, and that understanding is completely consistent with "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", If UPS or the IBT told you different before you signed on then they lied to you. What's your excuse for being surprised? This is UPS and the IBT we're talking about!</p><p> </p><p>It's elementary when signing a contract that you are not to rely on oral representations not contained in the contract. Many contracts say just that, explicitly. If you are offered a contract that seems to say the opposite of what you are told it means you need to get a signed MOE or codicil "clarifying" the true meaning. All you needed was a MOE stating that what was meant was "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2(c) below". Now, do you have this or not? If you don't, what's your excuse?</p><p> </p><p>You're a good guy, Red. But you need to suck it up and recognize that you (collectively, whoever was doing the negotiation for 705) fell down on the job this time. The first step to not letting it happen again is to acknowledge that you screwed up, and not keep asserting that the language you signed off on was clear, or good enough. It wasn't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 494263, member: 9310"] No, Red, it's not clear that it says what you want it to mean. It doesn't say "below", it says "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", and Article 41, Section 2 contains both 2(a) and 2(c), with the former saying in its text that it applies in this case and the latter saying in its text that it does not. The clear meaning of the text is that 2(a) applies when it says it does and 2(c) applies when it says it does, and that understanding is completely consistent with "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2 below", If UPS or the IBT told you different before you signed on then they lied to you. What's your excuse for being surprised? This is UPS and the IBT we're talking about! It's elementary when signing a contract that you are not to rely on oral representations not contained in the contract. Many contracts say just that, explicitly. If you are offered a contract that seems to say the opposite of what you are told it means you need to get a signed MOE or codicil "clarifying" the true meaning. All you needed was a MOE stating that what was meant was "in accordance with Article 41, Section 2(c) below". Now, do you have this or not? If you don't, what's your excuse? You're a good guy, Red. But you need to suck it up and recognize that you (collectively, whoever was doing the negotiation for 705) fell down on the job this time. The first step to not letting it happen again is to acknowledge that you screwed up, and not keep asserting that the language you signed off on was clear, or good enough. It wasn't. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Progression pay
Top