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 Discussions
What is L.P. thinking?
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="dannyboy" data-source="post: 433741" data-attributes="member: 484"><p>tos</p><p> </p><p>t said it well</p><p> </p><p>but let me just point out why. take the first deduction you make past your inability to actually believe strongly in something.......oh wait, you do believe strongly, just in a lot of the wrong stuff.<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>you are assuming that ups was the only one there? the union was not at the panel? ups is the only one that actually knows what was said, and the poor union is just to stupid to be able to testify. and what would make reds testimony hearsay, and not that of the company? he was there. he has the paperwork that declared him not guilty. so why would you think that only ups could give testimony, but everyone elses would be hearsay.</p><p> </p><p>see what i am saying. you throw around all those neato legal terms, but you really have no idea as to the legal application in this case.</p><p> </p><p>9.5, did i ever say that he is not guilty of possession? but that is not what we are dealing with here.</p><p> </p><p>as to the lesser charges, i would take a serious guess that the charge of possession was not one that was offered. my guess is that lesser charges than felony theft, but still theft were offered, and that is why they were refused. </p><p> </p><p>tie, you are correct, i have seen a lot of thieves at ups. some were even pretty close to me, people i saw every day, went out to eat with, etc.</p><p> </p><p>but i have also seen the misuse of that power that is delegated to the lp department. lazy people (maybe just over worked) that do not attempt to do the proper investigation, but instead jump to a lot of conclusions that are not borne out by the proof. much like tos's post above. maybe this, and if that, and when this could have happened, and bingo, we have enough "proof" to have him arrested and jailed.</p><p> </p><p>i think you will need to have a little more faith in the guys at the panel. they very much understand the guy screwed up. did something that was bone headed and wrong. and putting him back to work without backpay is a clear warning that he did do wrong. kinda the corp version of taking him out behind the woodshed (that ought to sooth the savage 9.5).</p><p> </p><p>d</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 433741, member: 484"] tos t said it well but let me just point out why. take the first deduction you make past your inability to actually believe strongly in something.......oh wait, you do believe strongly, just in a lot of the wrong stuff.:wink2: you are assuming that ups was the only one there? the union was not at the panel? ups is the only one that actually knows what was said, and the poor union is just to stupid to be able to testify. and what would make reds testimony hearsay, and not that of the company? he was there. he has the paperwork that declared him not guilty. so why would you think that only ups could give testimony, but everyone elses would be hearsay. see what i am saying. you throw around all those neato legal terms, but you really have no idea as to the legal application in this case. 9.5, did i ever say that he is not guilty of possession? but that is not what we are dealing with here. as to the lesser charges, i would take a serious guess that the charge of possession was not one that was offered. my guess is that lesser charges than felony theft, but still theft were offered, and that is why they were refused. tie, you are correct, i have seen a lot of thieves at ups. some were even pretty close to me, people i saw every day, went out to eat with, etc. but i have also seen the misuse of that power that is delegated to the lp department. lazy people (maybe just over worked) that do not attempt to do the proper investigation, but instead jump to a lot of conclusions that are not borne out by the proof. much like tos's post above. maybe this, and if that, and when this could have happened, and bingo, we have enough "proof" to have him arrested and jailed. i think you will need to have a little more faith in the guys at the panel. they very much understand the guy screwed up. did something that was bone headed and wrong. and putting him back to work without backpay is a clear warning that he did do wrong. kinda the corp version of taking him out behind the woodshed (that ought to sooth the savage 9.5). d [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
What is L.P. thinking?
Top