Someone Clarify Thanksgiving Holiday Changes??

[ZQXC]

You got up early this morning.

 

[10 point]

"Voluntary" is the magic word.
When it morphs into "required" and the local leadership takes the day after Thanksgiving and Labor Day off how you going to feel about that?

(Just trying to stir the pot a little )

 

[Anonymous 11]

"Voluntary" is the magic word.
When it morphs into "required" and the local leadership takes the day after Thanksgiving and Labor Day off how you going to feel about that?

That's a good point.

 

[Irishman Collins]

My new interpretation of these sections. Section 1 members who believe that shall means will and will means shall not be required to work will not work on said holidays because common sense prevails in these members. Section 4 members who believe that shall doesn't mean will and will doesn't mean shall not be required to work. These members will blindly follow their leadership into their trucks on above named holidays because common sense does not prevail in these members.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

A regular seniority employee shall not be required to work on the following eight (8) named holidays

I'm telling you, if this allowed to persist, Christmas morning will be next.

Bubble,

I'm not trying to beat you up.

If you want to try and dissect "certain" words or "partial sentences".... Have at it.

File a grievance. Even though, it's out of "context" with the intent of the language.

The times they are a changing, and another delivery service would gladly take that volume.

Amen.


Trying to argue (in a grievance)....

The company should be "prevented" from making money, is more than short sighted.

Last I checked, they have certain financial obligations to our health/welfare plans and pension funds.

The problem is simple, I want leadership that will interpret language for it's members and not U.P S.

Nice thought.

You can elect people all day long, to try and interpret contact language.

But, if they weren't involved with negotiations.... it's only "their" opinion.


What is the bottom line.... ??


The company knows the majority of members will just "capitulate".

TDU.... always posts our vote results. Thank them, for everything.




-Bug-

 

[Anonymous 11]

Bubble,

I'm not trying to beat you up.

If you want to try and dissect "certain" words or "partial sentences".... Have at it.

File a grievance. Even though, it's out of "context" with the intent of the language.



Amen.


Trying to argue (in a grievance)....

The company should be "prevented" from making money, is more than short sighted.

Last I checked, they have certain financial obligations to our health/welfare plans and pension funds.




Nice thought.

You can elect people all day long, to try and interpret contact language.

But, if they weren't involved with negotiations.... it's only "their" opinion.


What is the bottom line.... ??


The company knows the majority of members will just "capitulate".

TDU.... always posts our vote results. Thank them, for everything.




-Bug-

Winner and still champion.

 

[Bubblehead]

Bubble,

I'm not trying to beat you up.

If you want to try and dissect "certain" words or "partial sentences".... Have at it.

File a grievance. Even though, it's out of "context" with the intent of the language.


-Bug-

Beat up???
I don't feel that way at all.
If anything, I feel more and more validated as we debate.

I don't feel I'm taking anything out of context, and with this in mind, I challenge you to tell us the meaning and relevance of the first sentence of Art 15 sec 1?
In what context is it valid, or is it extraneous?
Within your theory of "the intent of the language", it seems to have no place.

A regular seniority employee shall not be required to work on the following eight (8) named holidays

Let me endeavor to equate this to an analogy.
If I secure a loan at 3.5% interest, and after all the papers are signed and I make several payments, the bank realizes they should have charged me 5.3% instead, should they be let out of the original agreement because they didn't write it properly?

Perhaps I will file a grievance.

 

[10 point]

Mr. Bubble, I suppose it should have read "may not" instead of "shall not" so as to validate their point.

When it comes down to ethics, well you can't take things literally. Not anymore.

When it comes down to contributions you bad sheep you...get back in the pen and take one for the team(care).

 

[10 point]

Bubble,

I'm not trying to beat you up.

If you want to try and dissect "certain" words or "partial sentences".... Have at it.

File a grievance. Even though, it's out of "context" with the intent of the language.



Amen.


Trying to argue (in a grievance)....

The company should be "prevented" from making money, is more than short sighted.

Last I checked, they have certain financial obligations to our health/welfare plans and pension funds.




Nice thought.

You can elect people all day long, to try and interpret contact language.

But, if they weren't involved with negotiations.... it's only "their" opinion.


What is the bottom line.... ??


The company knows the majority of members will just "capitulate".

TDU.... always posts our vote results. Thank them, for everything.




-Bug-

Were you involved in negotiations? (Serious question.)

If so, how difficult is it to clarify language in the contract so that it's easier for the average employee to understand the meaning of every article in it's context?

 

[Bubblehead]

Were you involved in negotiations? (Serious question.)

If so, how difficult is it to clarify language in the contract so that it's easier for the average employee to understand the meaning of every article in it's context?

Perhaps this fuels the apathy we all loath?
Not that the language isn't clear, rather that it isn't always interpreted literally.
For most, filing a grievance is intimidating and requires a confident mindset.
We really need to believe that these articles mean what they say.
Doesn't a dues paying member deserve this?
It's really frustrating.

 

[Anonymous 11]

Perhaps this fuels the apathy we all loath?
Not that the language isn't clear, rather that it isn't always interpreted literally.
For most, filing a grievance is intimidating and requires a confident mindset.
We really need to believe that these articles mean what they say.
Doesn't a dues paying member deserve this?
It's really frustrating.

You ever want to change it I'm sure you could count on some help with interpreting it.

 

[Bubblehead]

You ever want to change it I'm sure you could count on some help with interpreting it.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

 

[Anonymous 11]

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Nope.

 

[10 point]

I think it's easy to interpret what you are accustomed to dealing with day in and out knowing that everyone in the room is on the same page.

It sometimes makes others feel out of the loop and those on a power trip seem to like it that way. A lot.

 

[Irishman Collins]

Interpreting the words shall not be required to work! For guys like Bubblehead and myself this is the most frustrating of all. I guess the I..B.T. has a completely different dictionary than the rest of the English speaking world. The fact that some of you still fall right in line and accept what your leadership and the I.B.T. are telling you is mind boggling! People I beg of you, wake up before it is interpreted that shall receive overtime after 8 becomes after 8 straight days. The language in Section 1 is clear and it has no other meaning!

 

[Irishman Collins]

Anytime that someone points out issues with the I.B.T. the I.B.T. always claims it is T.D.U.. Ridiculous, it sounds just like our government. Never take responsibility just claim it is the other parties fault. That is the reason that both organizations are in effective

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Beat up? I don't feel that way at all.

Cool.

Because, that wasn't my "intent".

I don't feel I'm taking anything out of context, and with this in mind, I challenge you to tell us the meaning and relevance of the first sentence of Art 15 sec 1?
In what context is it valid, or is it extraneous?
Within your theory of "the intent of the language", it seems to have no place.

I covered that in a previous post. But, if it helps people understand....

It can seem "convoluted". Ok ?

Were you involved in negotiations? (Serious question.)

I had just started working there (when that particular article was written).

Anyone, elected to serve as an Officer or Business Agent in their Local....

Will eventually be involved with contract negotiations. That's part of the job.

How difficult is it to clarify language in the contract so that it's easier for the average employee to understand the meaning of every article in it's context?

The contract, would be thicker than a phone book.

"Definitions" are dangerous.


Case and point....

A lot of "white paper" contracts, have definitive language on attendance. (And other things)

5 infractions = Warning letter

6 infractions = Suspension

7 infractions = Termination.... Period. End of story.


See where I'm going ?

Perhaps this fuels the apathy we all loath?
Not that the language isn't clear, rather that it isn't always interpreted literally.
For most, filing a grievance is intimidating and requires a confident mindset.
We really need to believe that these articles mean what they say.
Doesn't a dues paying member deserve this?
It's really frustrating.

You should try and become a ba and try to change it a little. You never know what could happen if you are willing to work.

The only "price of admission" to gain that knowledge....

Is being elected to office in your Local.


All it takes is money.

And, a record of experience.



-Bug-

 

[Anonymous 11]

Beat up???
I don't feel that way at all.
If anything, I feel more and more validated as we debate.

I don't feel I'm taking anything out of context, and with this in mind, I challenge you to tell us the meaning and relevance of the first sentence of Art 15 sec 1?
In what context is it valid, or is it extraneous?
Within your theory of "the intent of the language", it seems to have no place.

A regular seniority employee shall not be required to work on the following eight (8) named holidays

Let me endeavor to equate this to an analogy.
If I secure a loan at 3.5% interest, and after all the papers are signed and I make several payments, the bank realizes they should have charged me 5.3% instead, should they be let out of the original agreement because they didn't write it properly?

Perhaps I will file a grievance.

Do you like NFL football?

 

[Anonymous 11]

Do you like NFL football?

Bubblehead please answer the question. It's not to derail the thread.

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Bubblehead please answer the question. It's not to derail the thread.

Naked ladies?