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="The Other Side" data-source="post: 433834" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>Ahh Danny,</p><p></p><p>How far shall I break this down for you. As I said before to you on this case. You have to take your personal emotional feelings out of the equation and use the facts at hand.</p><p></p><p>Here it is again. A panel hearing is <strong>NOT A TRIAL</strong>. There is <strong>NO SWORN TESTIMONY</strong>, <strong>NO WITNESSES</strong>, <strong>NO VIDEO</strong>, <strong>NO AUDIO</strong>, no <strong>RECORDED TESTIMONY</strong>. The only thing RED could testify to, would be what <strong><span style="font-size: 12px">HE</span></strong> said only. Everything else would be <strong>HEARSAY</strong>.</p><p></p><p>A Union agreement can <strong>NEVER</strong>,<strong> EVER</strong> circumvent <strong>STATE</strong> or <strong>LOCAL LAW</strong>.</p><p></p><p>No matter what the outcome of three union guys and three company guys (<strong>panel</strong>), the <strong>COMPANY</strong> can still pursue its <strong>LEGAL</strong> options in this case.</p><p></p><p>There is <strong>NOTHING</strong> in the <strong>NMA</strong> that <strong>PRECLUDES </strong>the company from excersising its <strong>legal options</strong>.</p><p></p><p>Now, I <strong>guarantee</strong> you that the panel hearing did not "<strong>DECLARE HIM NOT GUILTY</strong>" and RED <strong>will NOT</strong> have any such<strong> ruling</strong> or <strong>finding</strong> in <strong>writing</strong>.</p><p></p><p>What a panel does is hear both sides in approximately 10 mins each side.</p><p></p><p>Then it votes on each sides position. The majority rules. Now, this is not to say a person is I<strong>NNOCENT</strong>. Its to determine if rules were followed and the <strong>contract violated</strong>. Now, without seeing the record, I cannot guess as to why the panel ruled to re-instate him to the job. There is "<strong>innocent until proven guilty</strong>" language in our NMA, and maybe the company just did not have enough to convince the panel that the <strong>termination met this standard</strong>.</p><p></p><p>I believe this is what may have been ruled, but that does not make him <strong>INNOCENT</strong>.</p><p></p><p>The company, because of its limited search and seizure restrictions can differ any investigation to the local authorities in all cases. Because the State has the power to supoena, search and interogate, its more likely to get to the truth of the matter, and I am sure this is what UPS wants to find out.</p><p></p><p>With millions of dollars in losses each month, getting to the source of theft is what is intended.</p><p></p><p>We all have a stake in the company being protected from theft. If this young man is a bigger part of an internal theft ring, then by all means, look up his keister with a microscope for all I care.</p><p></p><p>But, dont bring tears to the case.</p><p></p><p>He's in possession of a stolen phone, stolen from his employer, stolen by a known thief previously fired for stealing, sold in the very parking lot of the very company that it was stolen from, sold to a "friend" of the thief comfortable enough to know that he will NOT be turned in and for a price less than rediculous to be an honest sale.</p><p></p><p>What more needs to be said?</p><p></p><p>Danny, like I said, there are many things to consider, one of them is another latin term:</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 15px">CAVEAT EMPTOR</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Main Entry: caveat emp·tor Pronunciation: \-ˈem(p)-tər, -ˌtȯr\ Function: <em>noun</em> Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware Date: 1523 <strong>:</strong> a principle in commerce: <strong><span style="font-size: 12px">without a warranty the buyer takes the risk</span></strong></p><p></p><p>This is what the young man in question did. He took the<strong> risk</strong>, now he faces a criminal charge.</p><p></p><p>Another poster said it correctly, make him an example for others, buying stolen merchandise does not pay. Finding this young man not guilty would only make it ok for others to steal and sell company merchandise to each other with impunity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 433834, member: 17969"] Ahh Danny, How far shall I break this down for you. As I said before to you on this case. You have to take your personal emotional feelings out of the equation and use the facts at hand. Here it is again. A panel hearing is [B]NOT A TRIAL[/B]. There is [B]NO SWORN TESTIMONY[/B], [B]NO WITNESSES[/B], [B]NO VIDEO[/B], [B]NO AUDIO[/B], no [B]RECORDED TESTIMONY[/B]. The only thing RED could testify to, would be what [B][SIZE=3]HE[/SIZE][/B] said only. Everything else would be [B]HEARSAY[/B]. A Union agreement can [B]NEVER[/B],[B] EVER[/B] circumvent [B]STATE[/B] or [B]LOCAL LAW[/B]. No matter what the outcome of three union guys and three company guys ([B]panel[/B]), the [B]COMPANY[/B] can still pursue its [B]LEGAL[/B] options in this case. There is [B]NOTHING[/B] in the [B]NMA[/B] that [B]PRECLUDES [/B]the company from excersising its [B]legal options[/B]. Now, I [B]guarantee[/B] you that the panel hearing did not "[B]DECLARE HIM NOT GUILTY[/B]" and RED [B]will NOT[/B] have any such[B] ruling[/B] or [B]finding[/B] in [B]writing[/B]. What a panel does is hear both sides in approximately 10 mins each side. Then it votes on each sides position. The majority rules. Now, this is not to say a person is I[B]NNOCENT[/B]. Its to determine if rules were followed and the [B]contract violated[/B]. Now, without seeing the record, I cannot guess as to why the panel ruled to re-instate him to the job. There is "[B]innocent until proven guilty[/B]" language in our NMA, and maybe the company just did not have enough to convince the panel that the [B]termination met this standard[/B]. I believe this is what may have been ruled, but that does not make him [B]INNOCENT[/B]. The company, because of its limited search and seizure restrictions can differ any investigation to the local authorities in all cases. Because the State has the power to supoena, search and interogate, its more likely to get to the truth of the matter, and I am sure this is what UPS wants to find out. With millions of dollars in losses each month, getting to the source of theft is what is intended. We all have a stake in the company being protected from theft. If this young man is a bigger part of an internal theft ring, then by all means, look up his keister with a microscope for all I care. But, dont bring tears to the case. He's in possession of a stolen phone, stolen from his employer, stolen by a known thief previously fired for stealing, sold in the very parking lot of the very company that it was stolen from, sold to a "friend" of the thief comfortable enough to know that he will NOT be turned in and for a price less than rediculous to be an honest sale. What more needs to be said? Danny, like I said, there are many things to consider, one of them is another latin term: [B][SIZE=4]CAVEAT EMPTOR[/SIZE][/B] Main Entry: caveat emp·tor Pronunciation: \-ˈem(p)-tər, -ˌtȯr\ Function: [I]noun[/I] Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware Date: 1523 [B]:[/B] a principle in commerce: [B][SIZE=3]without a warranty the buyer takes the risk[/SIZE][/B] This is what the young man in question did. He took the[B] risk[/B], now he faces a criminal charge. Another poster said it correctly, make him an example for others, buying stolen merchandise does not pay. Finding this young man not guilty would only make it ok for others to steal and sell company merchandise to each other with impunity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
What is L.P. thinking?
Top