3 done 3 to go
In control of own destiny
I understand how it is being "interpreted".
Just have a hard time with the "because we said so" mentality.
What I was hoping to do is explore the semantics of yet another fairly ambiguous article in the Central Region Supplement, a kin to Article 15 sec 1 and 4, with it's contradicting language regarding being "not required to work a named holiday" in sec 1, only to be told "as otherwise required" later in section 4. (still think that is in reference to Art 40)
How is saying that a holiday reduces a guaranteed workweek by 8 hours, not the same as it counting towards a punch and wouldn't it have been much clearer to say in addition that holiday pay does not count towards a 6th or 7th day worked?
I don't see the two notions as being connected within the contractual language as it is.
Why is it our Union doesn't see the ambiguity of these articles before signing on and why don't they fight when the Company tries to jump through these perceived loopholes?
Sometimes I feel as if I am at a disadvantage being able to read and comprehend "literally" what is written, rather than possess the ability to read between the grey lines.
I know several BA's in the past who loved to joke about a secret decoder ring.
....maybe it wasn't a joke?
The Scarry thing! Our government. Has this ring in gold. The corruption is just starting to fold.