Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bubblehead" data-source="post: 1392991" data-attributes="member: 14176">In many cases, I would agree, but not here.This isn&#039;t a case of legalese or vaguities, rather a poorly written article that contradicts itself at the very least and renders section 4 obsolete if taken literally.I&#039;ll give you another example in the Central Region Supplement, the infamous Art 17(i) which reads:(i) other cardinal offenses, the Company and the Union agree thatthere are offenses where an employee may be suspended in lieu ofdischarge If taken literally, you would believe that the company would enact this article to suspend an employee instead of discharging them.Somehow though, it works in reverse, allowing the company to jump over progressive discipline.I think the powers that be hate it when we actually read and digest contractual language.Instead, they would rather just tell us what it was supposed to say.No need to fix the problems when we can just treat the symptoms.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bubblehead, post: 1392991, member: 14176"] In many cases, I would agree, but not here. This isn't a case of legalese or vaguities, rather a poorly written article that contradicts itself at the very least and renders section 4 obsolete if taken literally. I'll give you another example in the Central Region Supplement, the infamous Art 17(i) which reads: [U][I][B](i) other cardinal offenses, the Company and the Union agree that there are offenses where an employee may be suspended in lieu of discharge [/B][/I][/U] If taken literally, you would believe that the company would enact this article to suspend an employee instead of discharging them. Somehow though, it works in reverse, allowing the company to jump over progressive discipline. I think the powers that be hate it when we actually read and digest contractual language. Instead, they would rather just tell us what it was supposed to say. No need to fix the problems when we can just treat the symptoms. [/QUOTE]

Verification